BEFORE THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY In the Matter of California’s Request for Waiver Action Pursuant to Clean Air ActSection 209(b) for California’s HeavyDuty Engine On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements (HD OBD) and On-Board Diagnostic SystemRequirements for Passenger Cars, LightDuty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD II)

_________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CLEAN AIR ACT § 209(b) WAIVER REQUEST SUPPORT DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD January 7, 2014

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Pursuant to section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) requests that the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) take the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 209(b) waiver actions described below for CARB’s regulatory amendments to its on-board diagnostic requirements applicable to light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines. This waiver request encompasses regulatory amendments to California’s on-board diagnostic requirements that were adopted in two separate rulemaking actions. A. CARB January 6, 2012 Rulemaking At a public hearing on January 6, 2012, CARB, by Resolution 12-11 (Enclosure 27), approved the adoption of amendments to the regulation entitled “Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements -- 2004 and Subsequent Model-Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD II Requirements), 1 and to the regulation entitled “Enforcement of Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model-Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines” (OBD II Enforcement Regulation). 2

1 Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 1968.2 2 Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 1968.5Waiver Request Support Document

2 The Board subsequently adopted the rulemaking in Resolution 12-21 on March 22, 2012. (Enclosure 28). 3 The regulation was submitted to California’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for review on June 25, 2012 and was approved by OAL, filed with California’s Secretary of State, and became operative under state law on August 7, 2012. B. CARB August 23, 2012 Rulemaking At a public hearing on August 23, 2012, CARB, by Resolution 12-29 (enclosed herewith), approved the adoption of amendments to its regulation entitled “Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty Engines” (HD OBD Requirements), 4 the regulation entitled “Enforcement of Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty Engines” (HD OBD Enforcement Regulation), 5 and to the OBD II Requirements and the OBD II Enforcement Regulation. At the direction of the Board, after making modifications to the regulation available for supplemental public comment, CARB’s Executive Officer formally adopted the rulemaking in Executive Order R-13-005 on June 26, 2013 (Enclosure 16). The regulation was submitted to California’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for review on June 27, 2013, and was approved by OAL, filed with California’s Secretary of State, and became operative under state law on July 31, 2103. C. HD OBD Regulatory and Waiver History CARB initially adopted the HD OBD Requirements in December 2005, and EPA issued California a waiver for those requirements under CAA section 209(b) in August 2008. 6 The regulation, as initially adopted, required manufacturers to install fully compliant HD OBD systems in both diesel and gasoline powered heavy-duty engines (engines used in vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds). The requirements were to be phased in on a single engine family for model years 2010 through 2012 before requiring manufacturers to incorporate compliant HD OBD systems on all 2013 and later model year engines. The phase-in was designed to allow manufacturers to gain experience on a smaller number of engines prior to wide scale implementation, promoting more effective use of their personnel and testing resources. TheBoard subsequently updated the HD OBD regulation and also adopted HD OBDspecific enforcement requirements (HD OBD Enforcement Regulation) in 2010.

3 Although this rulemaking contained a supplemental public comment period, no amendments to sections 1968.2 or 1968.5 were proposed or made to the versions of the amendments described in the 2012 Staff Report. 4 Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 1971.1 5 Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 1971.5 6 73 Fed.Reg. 52042 (September 8, 2008).Waiver Request Support Document

3 The 2010 HD OBD amendments also aligned the HD OBD requirements with the OBD II requirements for medium-duty vehicles. EPA issued California a waiver for the 2010 HD OBD amendments in December 2012. 7
D. OBD II Regulatory and Waiver History CARB initially adopted the OBD II regulation in July 1990 and subsequently adopted amendments to the OBD II regulation in 1992, 1993, 1995. 8 EPA issued California a waiver of the regulation, as last amended in 1995, under CAA section 209(b) in October 1996. 9 Since the granting of the waiver, CARB has adopted further amendments to the OBD II regulation in 1997, 2003, 2007, and 2010. 10 CARB subsequently filed requests on December 24, 1997, October 30, 2003, January 22, 2008, and December 15, 2010 that the EPA respectively find that the 1997, 2003, 2007, and 2010 amendments to the OBD II regulation be found to be within the scope of the previously granted OBD II waiver. The October 30, 2003 request further requested that the OBD II enforcement procedures be found within the scope of the previously granted waiver for “California’s Enforcement of New and In-Use Vehicle Standards,” title 13, Cal. Code Regs. section 2100 et seq. 11 The 1997, 2003, 2007, and 2010 requests are still pending. As waived in 1996, the OBD II regulation requires motor vehicle manufacturers to incorporate OBD II systems in all new passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles and engines. Specifically, manufacturers are required to install OBD II systems thateffectively monitor all emission-related components and systems on the motor vehicle for proper operation and for deterioration or malfunctions that cause emissions to exceed specific thresholds. The regulation also requires that OBD II systems provide specific diagnostic information in a standardized format through a standardized serial data link on-board the vehicles to ensure that service and repair technicians can properly and promptly repair identified malfunctions. Since initially adopting the OBD II requirements in 1990, the Board has requested that the staff biennially update it on motor vehicle manufacturers’ progress in meeting the amended OBD II requirements and to propose such modifications as necessary to achieve maximum compliance with the regulation. At a May 28, 2009 rulemaking, staff proposed changes to the OBD II Requirements to primarily harmonize the medium-duty diesel vehicle

7 77 Fed.Reg. 73459 (December 10, 2012). 8 The Board initially approved the regulation and amendments thereto at rulemakings held respectively on September 14, 1989, September 12, 1991, July 9, 1993, and December 8, 1994. 9 The decision was signed on October 2, 1996, and published at 61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996). 10 The Board initially approved the amendments at rulemakings held respectively on December 12, 1996; April 25, 2002; September 28, 2006; and May 28, 2010. 11 See 61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996); 43 Fed.Reg. 9344 (March 7, 1978); 43 Fed.Reg. 25729 (June 14, 1978).Waiver Request Support Document

4 requirements with the amendments to the HD OBD Requirements that apply to heavy-duty diesel engines. 12 Harmonization would allow manufacturers that produce both heavy-duty and medium-duty diesel engines to design to and meet essentially the same requirements. E. Overview of Waiver Request

Section II of this document describes the 2012 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement Regulation. Section III of this document describes the 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD and OBD II Requirements and Section IV of this document describes the 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD and OBD II Enforcement Regulations. Section V describes the criteria that EPA considers in taking waiver actions for California rulemakings that adopt or amend standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, and Sections VI through VIII demonstrate that EPA must grant the requested waiver actions for the 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD Requirements and HD OBD Enforcement Regulation, the 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement Regulation, and the 2012 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement Regulations, respectively. CARB respectively requests that the Administrator grant a new waiver for those elements of the 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD Requirements and the HD OBD Enforcement regulation that are determined to establish new or more stringent standards, and to confirm that those elements of the 2013 HD OBD Amendments that relax the stringency or that clarify previously waived requirements fall within the scope of the waiver granted in 2012. CARB also requests that the Administrator grant a new waiver for those elements of the 2012 and 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement Regulation that are determined to establish new or more stringent standards, and to confirm that those elements of the 2012 and 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement Regulation that relax the stringency or that clarify previously waived requirements fall within the scope of the previously granted waiver. 13

12 EPA granted CARB a waiver for its initially adopted HD OBD Requirements on August 13, 2008 (73 Fed.Reg. 52042 (September 8, 2008). The Board approved amendments to the HD OBD Requirements concurrently with the proposed amendments to the OBD II Requirements on May 28, 2009, which the Board formally adopted on April 5, 2010 and EPA granted a waiver for the 2010 Amendments to the HD OBD Requirements on November 29, 2012. 77 Fed.Reg. 73459 (December 10, 2012).

13 CARB continues to believe that it is appropriate for EPA to determine that all of the 2012 and 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement regulation fall within the scope of the OBD II waiver granted in October 1996, for the reasons set forth in CARB’s prior OBD II waiver submittals December 24, 1997, October 30, 2003, January 22, 2008, and December 15, 2010.Waiver Request Support Document

5 II. SUMMARY OF 2012 AMENDMENTS TO OBD II MONITORING REQUIREMENTS AND OBD II ENFORCEMENT REGULATION 14
CARB adopted the 2012 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements to respond to manufacturers’ requests to modify the existing OBD II regulation. Manufacturers approached staff in 2011 and claimed that the OBD II Requirements needed to be immediately modified so that they could produce and certify compliant 2013 model year vehicles, and CARB responded to the requests by modifying both the OBD II Requirements and the OBD II Enforcement regulation. The 2012 Amendments largely relax the implementation of a few requirements in recognition of delays in technology development, and additionally clarify existing requirements, including requirements applicable to hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles. A summary of the substantive amendments is provided below. All references to the Staff Report in this section are to the Staff Report supporting the 2012 Amendments.

A. Definitions 15
1. Section (c): Calculated Load Value The definition of “calculated load value” was amended to allow diesel engine manufacturers to use the definition in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)J1979 in lieu of the current definition in SAE J1939, which only applies to heavyduty diesels and not medium-duty diesels. 16
2. Section (c): Fueled Engine Operation A new definition of “fueled engine operation”, defined as the state where any fuel is introduced into the engine for purposes of combustion, was added to supplement the amendments to the in-use monitor performance requirements for hybrid vehicles. 17

14 A detailed discussion of the adopted OBD II Requirements and the OBD II Enforcement Requirements discussed in Section II.F, infra, is set forth in the Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons For Proposed Rulemaking (Staff Report) issued on December 7, 2011. 15 All citations to section numbers in section II of this document are to title 13, California Code of Regulations section 1968.2, unless indicated otherwise. 16 Staff Report, at page 62. 17 Staff Report, at pages 63-67.Waiver Request Support Document

6 3. Section (c): Hybrid Vehicle A new definition for “hybrid vehicle” was added to supplement the amendments to the permanent fault code erasure requirements and the in-use performance requirements, where “hybrid vehicle” is used. 18
4. Section (c): Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle A new definition of “plug-in hybrid electric vehicle” was added to supplement the amendments to the in-use monitor performance requirements, sections (d)(3.2.1), (d)(4.3.2) and (d)(5.5),where this definition is used. 19
5. Section (c): Propulsion System Active A new definition for “propulsion system active” was added to supplement the amendments to the permanent fault code erasure requirements and the in-use performance requirements, sections (d)(2.5), (d)(4.3.2) and (d)(5.5), the sections where “propulsion system active” is used. 20
6. Section (c): Warm-up Cycle The amendments modified the definition for “warm-up cycle” to allow manufacturers to use an alternative definition of “warm-up cycle” based on the criteria to erase the permanent fault code. The amendment would be applicable to vehicles such as hybrid vehicles or vehicles with highly efficient engines that are unable to warm up the engine coolant temperature to the defined temperatures under the current definition even when they have been sufficiently driven to constitute a “warm up cycle”. 21
B. General Requirements 1. Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) and Fault Code Requirements a. Section (d)(2.5.2)(B): Erasing a Permanent Fault Code. Section (d)(2.5.2), as initially adopted, required manufacturers to erase a permanent fault code only if on a single driving cycle, among other conditions, the cumulative time since engine start was greater than or equal to 600 seconds and the malfunction was not detected again. This ensured that the vehicle was operated for a sufficient period of time to reasonably detect a recurrence of the malfunction, but did not unnecessarily delay erasure of the permanent fault code.

18 Staff Report, at pages 63-67. 19 Staff Report, at pages 63-67. 20 Staff Report, at pages 63-67. 21 Staff Report, at pages 62-63.Waiver Request Support Document

7 The amendments clarify that for hybrid vehicles, the equivalent condition is “cumulative propulsion system active time since engine start” since hybrid engines may not start right after the vehicle is turned on (if at all) in typical drive cycles. 22

2. In-Use Monitor Performance Ratio Definition The OBD II regulation requires manufacturers to track monitor performance by counting the number of monitoring events and the number of driving events. The number of monitoring events is defined as the numerator and the number of driving events is defined 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 operating relative to vehicle operation. a. Section (d)(3.2.1)(D)(v): Minimum Acceptable In-Use Monitor Performance RatiosThe OBD II regulation previously required manufacturers to meet minimum inuse monitor performance ratios (0.336 for most monitors) through the 2016 model year. The amendments now allow monitors of components or systems that require engine operation on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to meet a reduced in-use monitor performance ratio of 0.100 through the 2016 model year. In the 2017 model year, the interim relief ends

. 23
b. Sections (d)(4.3.2)(D) and (L): Denominator Specifications Section (d)(4.3.2)(D), as originally adopted, required the denominator to be incremented for the evaporative system monitors only on trips that met a ‘cold start’ definition (i.e. , if the engine coolant temperature (ECT) and the ambient temperature were considered cold and the ECT at engine start was less than or equal to 12 degrees Fahrenheit higher than ambient temperature at start). The amendments to sections (d)(4.3.2)(D) and (L) require 2015 and subsequent model year plug-in hybrid vehicles to use an alternate definition of “cold start” (when the soak period immediately preceding the driving cycle is greater than or equal to 6 hours) in lieu of requiring the ECT at engine start to be less than or equal to 12 degrees Fahrenheit higher than ambient temperature at start. 2014 and older model year plug-in hybrid electric vehicles can either use the new criteria or the existing criteria to increment the evaporative system monitor denominator. 24

22 Staff Report, at pages 63-64. 23 Staff Report, at page 66. 24 Staff Report, at pages 65-66.Waiver Request Support Document

8 c. Section (d)(4.3.2)(F): Denominator Specifications The regulation originally required the PM sensor heater monitor to increment the denominator based on the general denominator incrementing criteria in section (d)(4.3.2)(B). The amendments modify section (d)(4.3.2)(F) to require the PM sensor heater monitor to increment the denominator if the component is commanded to function on two or more occasions for greater than two seconds or for a cumulative time greater than or equal to 10 seconds, whichever occurs first. 25
d. Section (d)(4.3.2)(H): Denominator Specifications The regulation originally required the PM sensor monitoring capability monitor to increment the denominator based on the general denominator incrementing criteria. The amendments to section(d)(4.3.2)(H) now allow manufacturers to propose alternate criteria (for CARB review and approval) to increment the denominator for PM sensor monitoring capability monitors. 26
e. Section (d)(4.3.2)(K): Denominator Specifications The newly added section (d)(4.3.2)(K) specifies the criteria for incrementing the general denominator for hybrid vehicles starting with the 2014 model year, and bases the incrementing on cumulative propulsion system active time and fueled engine operation, since the original general denominator criteria under section (d)(4.3.2)(B) was based on time after engine start, and therefore did not account for hybrid vehicles in which the engine starts later in the trip. 27
3. Sections (d)(5.5.1) and (d)(5.5.2) – Ignition Cycle Counter Sections (d)(5.5.1) and (d)(5.5.2), as originally adopted, required vehicles to report one ignition cycle counter that incremented if the engine exceeded a specific engine speed for at least two seconds plus or minus one second. Section (d)(5.5.2)(B) was amended for hybrid vehicles, to require the counter to be incremented when the propulsion system active definition is met for at least two seconds plus or minus one second. Sections (d)(5.5.1) and (d)(5.5.2)(C) were also amended for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, to require 2014 and subsequent model year plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to report two ignition cycle counters, with the additional counter required to be incremented if the fueled engine operation definition has been met for at least two seconds plus or minus one second. 28

25 Staff Report, at page 69. 26 Staff Report, at pages 67 and 69. 27 Staff Report, at pages 64-65. 28 Staff Report, at pages 66-67.Waiver Request Support Document

9 C. Monitoring Requirements for Diesel/Compression-Ignition Engines. 1. Section (f)(1.2.3)(B): NMHC Converting Catalyst Feedgas Monitoring Section (f)(1.2.3)(B) previously required 2010 and later model year light-duty vehicles and 2013 and later model year medium-duty vehicles to monitor the ability of NMHC catalysts to generate a desired feedgas (e.g ., nitrogen dioxide (NO2)) to promote better performance in a downstream aftertreatment component (e.g., for higher NOx conversion efficiency in a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system). The amendments delay this requirement until the 2015 model year for both light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. 29
2. Section (f)(9.2.4): PM Filter NMHC Conversion Monitoring Section (f)(9.2.4) previously required 2010 and later model year light-duty vehicles and 2013 and later model year medium-duty vehicles to monitor catalyzed PM filters for proper NMHC conversion capability. The amendmentsdelay this requirement until the 2015 model year for both light-duty and mediumduty vehicles. 30
3. Section (f)(15.2.2)(F): Comprehensive Component Output Component Monitoring Section (f)(15.2.2)(F) previously required manufacturers to monitor fuel control system components (e.g., injectors, fuel pumps) having tolerance compensation features on 2013 and subsequent model year diesel vehicles

. The amendmentsdelay this requirement to the 2015 model year for both light-duty and mediumduty diesel vehicles. 31
4. Section (f)(17.1): Exceptions to Monitoring Requirements – Revision of Emission Threshold or Malfunction Criteria Section (f)(17.1) originally allowed manufacturers to revise the PM filter filtering performance malfunction criteria to exclude detection of specific failure modes under certain conditions up through the 2009 model year for light-duty vehicles and through the 2012 model year for medium-duty vehicles. The amendments extend this allowance for both light-duty and medium-duty vehicles through the 2013 model year. 32
D. Standardization Requirements 1. Section (g)(1.4): Reference Documents

29 Staff Report, at pages 67-68. 30 Staff Report, at pages 69-70. 31 Staff Report, at pages 70-71. 32 Staff Report, at page 68.Waiver Request Support Document

10 The amendments update the list of SAE and ISO documents that are incorporated by reference into the OBD II Requirements, specifically adding the October 2011 version of SAE J1979-DA: Digital Annex of E/E Diagnostic Test Modes. As is common practice with technical standards, industry periodically updates the standards to add specification or clarity. 33
2. Section (g)(4): Required Emission Related Functions a. Sections (g)(4.2.6) and (g)(4.2.7): Data Stream Parameters Section (g)(4.2.6) originally required all 2013 and subsequent model year vehicles to report the parameter “type of fuel currently being used.” The amendments to sections (g)(4.2.6) and (g)(4.2.7) delay the requirement until the 2015 model year to provide manufacturers time to implement the latest revisions of the format for this parameter and to address interpretations by some manufacturers that this parameter was only required on flex fuel vehicles. 34
b. Section (g)(4.2.6)(B): Required Emission Related Functions: The OBD II regulation previously and erroneously specified that the “PM sensor output” signal was to be made available starting in both the 2010 model year and the 2013 model year. The amendments clarify that access to this signal was required in the 2010 model year by deleting the reference to “PM sensor output” under the 2013 and subsequent model year language in section 1968.2(g)(4.2.6)(B))

. E. Deficiencies 1. Section (k)(4): Carry-over Deficiencies The regulation originally allowed manufacturers to carry over deficiencies up to a maximum of three model years, provided manufacturers demonstrated that substantial hardware changes were needed to correct the deficiency. The amendments allow manufacturers to carry over deficiencies for up four model years (i.e., deficiencies first granted in the 2010 model year may be carried over through the 2013 model year), if they can demonstrate that substantial hardware changes, vehicle hardware modifications, and additional lead time are necessary to correct the deficiencies. 35

33 Staff Report, at page 71. 34 Staff Report, at pages 71-72. 35 Staff Report, at page 68.Waiver Request Support Document

11 2. Section (k)(7): Exceptions to Fines Requirements The amendments to section (k)(7) provide manufacturers free deficiencies for the PM filter filtering performance monitor, PM sensor monitor, and PM sensor heater monitor on 2013 and 2014 model year light- and medium-duty vehicles. 36
F. Amendments to OBD II Enforcement Regulation 1. Sections 1968.5(b)(6)(B)(i)a. and (c)(3)(A)(i): Finding of Nonconformance after Enforcement Testing and Ordered Remedial Action Section 1968.5(b)(6)(B)(i)a. specifies the criteria for engines to be included in the test sample group for OBD ratio testing while section (c)(3)(A)(i) specifies the criteria for mandatory recall for OBD ratio issues. The amendments extend the last model year from 2013 to 2016 for vehicles certified to the 0.100 ratio to account for the amendments made for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in section 1968.2(d)(3.2.1)(D)(v). 37

G. Other Amendments As discussed in the Staff Report, other amendments to the regulation were made to clarify existing requirements.

III. SUMMARY OF 2013 AMENDMENTS TO HD OBD and OBD II REQUIREMENTS 38
In adopting the HD OBD and OBD II regulations, the Board directed the staff to continue to follow manufacturers’ progress towards meeting the regulations’ requirements and to report back should modifications to the requirements be deemed appropriate. In accordance with the Board’s directives, staff met with stakeholders and, in conjunction with manufacturers, identified areas in which modifications to the HD OBD and OBD II regulations, as the latter regulation applies to medium-duty diesel vehicles, would be beneficial. The 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD Requirements primarily: accelerate the start date for OBD system implementation on alternate-fueled engines from the 2020 model year to the 2018 model year, relax some requirements for OBD systems on heavy-duty hybrid vehicles for the 2013 through 2015 model years, relax malfunction thresholds for three major emission control systems (particulate

36 Staff Report, at page 69. 37 Staff Report, at page 66. 38 A detailed discussion of the 2013 Amendments as discussed in Section II of this document is set forth in the Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (Staff Report) issued on July 5, 2012, the Notice of Availability of Modified Text issued on January 4, 2013 (15-Day Notice), and the Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR), issued on June 27, 2013. Copies of the aforementioned documents are enclosed herewith.Waiver Request Support Document

12 matter (PM) filters, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) catalysts, and NOx sensors) on diesel engines until the 2016 model year, delay monitoring requirements for some diesel-related components until 2015 to provide further lead time for emission control strategies to stabilize, and clarify requirements for several monitors and standardization. The 2013 Amendments additionally amended the HD OBD Requirements to be consistent with the federal definition of “emission standard” as set forth in Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2004) 541 U.S. 246, 253, 124 S.Ct. 1756, 1762 ( EMA)

. The 2013 Amendments also include the following amendments to the HD OBD regulation:

• Clarifying the purposes and objectives of the OBD regulations • Adding definitions of emission standard as it applies to OBD systems • Adding definitions for exhaust and evaporative emission standards • Adding definitions and revising the permanent fault code storage and erasure protocol and in-use monitoring performance requirements applicable to hybrid vehicles • Revising the freeze frame storage and erasure protocol • Revising the in-use monitoring performance requirements for the PM filter and PM sensor monitors • Revising the diesel misfire monitoring requirements to no longer require emission threshold-based malfunction criteria and to require expanded monitoring conditions • Delaying some monitoring requirements for catalyzed PM filters and diesel non-methane hydrocarbon converting catalysts from the 2013 model year to the 2015 model year • Revising the cooling system monitoring requirements to clarify when monitor enablement can occur • Updating the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and International Standards Organization document references • Revising the standardized communication protocol and diagnostic connector requirements to account for the new 500 kilobits per second baud rate version of SAE J1939 • Revising the readiness status requirements to clarify which monitors must be included in determining readiness • Clarifying the calibration verification number requirements • Deleting the service information requirements • Revising the certification demonstration testing requirements to clarify how to perform the testing for gasoline air-fuel ratio cylinder imbalance monitoring and exhaust gas sensor monitoring, to clarify the test requirements for diesel misfire monitoring, and to clarify the test requirements for catalyst faults and other faults where default actions are takenWaiver Request Support Document

13 • Adding items required to be submitted as part of the certification application • Revising the deficiencies section to allow up to two free deficiencies for 2013 through 2015 model year heavy-duty hybrid vehicles and for PM filter and PM sensor monitors To allow manufacturers of both heavy-duty and medium-duty diesel engines to be able to design OBD systems that will operate and be in compliance on medium- and heavy-duty engines, the 2013 Amendments concurrently amended certain OBD II Requirements that apply to medium-duty diesel engines to align where necessary with the aforementioned amendments to the HD OBD Requirements. 39
A summary of the substantive amendments to the HD OBD and medium-duty vehicle OBD II requirements is provided below. The summary references the Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking (Staff Report), issued July 5, 2012,and the Notice of Availability of Modified Text,

39 The 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements for medium-duty engines are less extensive than the 2013 Amendments applicable to HD OBD Requirements as the OBD II Requirements already incorporate several provisions of the amendments to the HD OBD Requirements, as discussed below in this footnote. 1971.1(d)(7.5.3): Implementation Schedule for Alternate-Fueled Engines. Nocorresponding amendment to the OBD II Requirement is needed because medium-duty alternatefueled engines are currently required to have fully compliant OBD II systems. 1971.1(d)(7.6), (g)(3.1.4), (g)(3.1.5): 2013 MY Hybrid Vehicles, and Exceptions for Hybrid Vehicles. No corresponding amendments to the OBD II Requirements are needed because medium-duty vehicle hybrid vehicles are currently required to have fully compliant OBD II systems. 1971.1(d)(2) and (h)(3.2): Diagnostic connector and SAE 1939 protocol. No corresponding amendments to the OBD II Requirements are needed since the OBD II Requirements already allow medium-duty vehicles to use the diagnostic connector and SAE J1939 protocol requirements specified in the 2013 HD OBD amendments, 1971.1(k): Deficiencies for HD Diesels and Hybrids. No corresponding amendments to the OBD II Requirements are needed because the OBD II Requirements already incorporate deficiencies for hybrid vehicles and additionally incorporates similar, but not identical deficiency provisions for diesel-related monitors. 1971.1(l)(2.1): Verification of Monitoring Requirements. No corresponding amendments to the OBD II Requirements are needed given the differences between the heavy-duty and medium-duty vehicle manufacturing industry. The heavy-duty vehicle industry consists of manufacturers that manufacture engines that are installed in vehicles that are generally manufactured by separate manufacturers, whereas medium-duty vehicles consist of engines and vehicles manufactured by a single manufacturer. The amendments to this section account for the non-integrated nature of the heavy-duty engines and heavy-duty vehicle and are not required given the integrated nature of the medium-duty vehicle industry.Waiver Request Support Document

14 issued January 4, 2013 (15-day Notice) associated with the Board’s 2013 rulemaking action (Enclosures 9-13 and 15). A. Purpose [Section 1971.1(a) and 1968.2(a)] The amendments clarify and reaffirm that the objectives of the HD OBD and the OBD II regulations are to ensure that emissions reductions in in-use motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines are achieved through improvements of emission system durability and performance. B. Definitions [Section 1971.1(c)] 40
1. Alternate-fueled engine A new definition for “alternate-fueled engine” has been added to clarify which engines constitute alternate-fueled engines that are exempted from complying with the HD OBD monitoring requirements until the 2018 model year, and specifically addresses engines that can utilize more than one type of fuel (i.e., engines that can operate on two different types of fuel at the same time or two different types of fuel but only one at a time). 41
2. Alternate phase-in/[Section 1968.2(c)] A new definition for “alternate phase-in” has been added that is similar to the current definition in the OBD II regulation, and provides manufacturers additional compliance flexibility in meeting some regulatory requirements subject to prescribed phase-in schedules. 42
3. Diagnostic or Emission Critical The amendments modify the definition for “diagnostic or emission critical” electronic control unit, and specifically modify the criteria for control units to be considered diagnostic or emission critical, which will limit the number of control units that are subject to reporting the CAL ID/CVN parameters. 43
4. Emission Standard, Exhaust Emission Standards or Tailpipe Emission Standards, and Evaporative Emission Standards/[Section 1968.2(c)] A new definition of “emission standard” was added to clarify that OBD systems, in general, and OBD design-feature requirements of sections 1971.1 and 1968.2,

40 The amendments discussed in this section pertain almost exclusively to definitions contained in title 13, CCR section 1971.1. In the several instances in which an amended definition also applies to medium-duty vehicle OBD II Requirements set forth in title 13, CCR section 1968.2, such amended definitions are specifically referenced as well. 41 Staff Report, at page 17. 42 15-Day Notice, Attachment B. 43 Staff Report at page 19, 15-Day Notice at pages 2-3.Waiver Request Support Document

15 specifically, are emission standards. The new definition conforms to the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the term in Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2004) 541 U.S. 246, which defined a “standard relating to the control of emissions” under Title 2 of the Clean Air Act as it applies to motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines. The definitions of “exhaust emission standards”, “tailpipe emission standards”, and evaporative emission standards” were added to specifically identify a subcategory of emission standard as opposed to the broader term of emission standard that encompasses all standards. 44
5. Fueled Engine Operation A new definition of “fueled engine operation,” defined as the state where any fuel is introduced into the engine for purposes of combustion, was added to complement the amendments to the in-use monitor performance requirements for hybrid vehicles. 45
6. Hybrid Vehicle A new definition for “hybrid vehicle” was added to complement the amendments to the permanent fault code erasure requirements and the in-use performance requirements, the sections in which “hybrid vehicle” is used. 7. Ignition Cycle The definition of ignition cycle was amended to be consistent with the amendments to section 1971.1(d)(5.5) relating to ignition cycle counter requirements for hybrid vehicles. Specifically, for hybrid vehicles, ignition cycle is defined as a driving cycle that begins when the propulsion system active definition is met for at least two seconds plus or minus one second, and ends when the propulsion system active definition is no longer met. 8. Propulsion System Active A new definition for “propulsion system active” was added to complement the amendments to the permanent fault code erasure requirements and the in-use performance requirements for hybrid vehicles. Specifically, this is defined as the state where the powertrain is enabled by the driver such that the vehicle is ready to be used. 46

44 Staff Report at page 18-19, 15-Day Notice at p.3. 45 Staff Report, at page 22. 46 Staff Report, at pages 22-24.Waiver Request Support Document

16 9. Small Volume Manufacturer A new definition for “small volume manufacturer” was added to complement the proposed changes to the exceptions to the monitoring requirements in section (g)(5.8.2), which allows small volume manufacturers to meet alternate phase-in schedules in lieu of the required phase-in scheduled specified in the regulation. 47
10. Warm-up Cycle The amendments modify the definition for “warm-up cycle” to allow manufacturers to use an alternative definition of “warm-up cycle” based on the criteria to erase the permanent fault code. This accounts for vehicles with highly efficient engines that are unable to warm up the engine coolant temperature to the specified temperatures in the current definition even if they have been sufficiently driven. 48
C. General Requirements 49
1. Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) and Fault Codes a. Section 1971.1(d)(2.2.1)(D): Storage and erasure of freeze frame conditions for ISO 15765-4 protocol. Section 1971.1(d)(2.2.1)(D) initially required vehicles using the ISO 15765-4 protocol to store and erase freeze frame conditions in conjunction with the storage and erasure of either pending or confirmed fault codes. This prior requirement unintentionally resulted in manufacturers erasing freeze frame conditions for pending fault codes that matured to confirmed fault codes and left repair technicians without helpful information to diagnose detected faults. This section was therefore amended to require most manufacturers to store freeze frame conditions in conjunction with storage of pending fault codes, to erase freeze frame conditions if the pending fault code is erased when no fault is detected, and to either keep the previous freeze frame conditions or to update the freeze frame conditions if the pending fault code matures to a confirmed fault code starting with the 2016 model year. The section was also amended with the addition of section 1971.1(d)(2.2.1)(D)(iv) to clarify the freeze frame requirements for monitoring strategies that do not store pending fault codes, requiring manufacturers to store and erase freeze frame conditions in conjunction with storage and erasure of confirmed fault codes, to better ensure that freeze frame

47 Staff Report, at page 19. 48 Staff Report, at pages 19-20. 49 The amendments discussed in this section generally pertain only to requirements contained in title 13, CCR section 1971.1. Only one amendment (discussed below in section 2a.) applies solely to the OBD II Requirements in 1968.2 and is so indicated.Waiver Request Support Document

17 information is available under all conditions to aid a technician in diagnosing a detected fault. 50
b. Section 1971.1(d)(2.2.2)(D): Storage and erasure of freeze frame conditions for SAE J1939 Protocol. Section 1971.1(d)(2.2.2)(D), as initially adopted, required manufacturers to store and erase freeze frame conditions in conjunction with the storage and erasure of either pending or confirmed fault codes. The section was amended with the addition of section 1971.1(d)(2.2.2)(D)(v) to clarify the freeze frame requirements for monitoring strategies that do not store pending fault codes, and now requires manufacturers to store and erase freeze frame conditions in conjunction with the storage and erasure of MIL-on fault codes. c. Sections 1971.1(d)(2.3.1)(A) and (d)(2.3.2)(A): MIL Extinguishing Protocol. Section 1971.1(d)(2.3.1)(A), as initially adopted, exempted gasoline monitors that had their own protocol for extinguishing the MIL from the MIL extinguishing protocol specified in section (d)(2.3.1)(A). The amendments now also exempt diesel monitors that have their own MIL extinguishing protocol from the MIL extinguishing protocol specified in section (d)(2.3.1)(A). Sections (d)(2.3.1)(A) and (d)(2.3.2)(A) also originally stated that the MIL “may be extinguished after three subsequent sequential driving cycles” with the previously detected malfunction no longer present. The amendments to these sections clarify that the MIL “shall” be extinguished “after at least” three subsequent sequential driving cycles to avoid misinterpretation of the original intent. d. Sections 1971.1(d)(2.3.1)(B) and (d)(2.3.2)(C): Fault Code Erasure Protocol. Sections 1971.1(d)(2.3.1)(B) and (d)(2.3.2)(C) previously allowed HD OBD systems to erase a confirmed fault code if the fault was not detected again for “at least 40 engine warm-up cycles.” These sections were amended to delete the word “engine” to be consistent with the use of “warm-up cycle” in the definitions in section (c) and were also amended to require manufacturers erase the fault code if the fault is not detected again for 40 warm-up cycles to ensure consistent implementation by manufacturers and to better ensure that repair technicians focus on recently detected faults and are not led astray by chasing down faults that have long since disappeared. 51

50 Staff Report, at page 20. 51 See Id, at pages 20-21.Waiver Request Support Document

18 e. Sections 1971.1(d)(2.3.1)(C)(ii)b.3 and (d)(2.3.2)(D)(ii)b.3: Erasing a Permanent Fault Code. Sections 1971.1(d)(2.3.1)(C) and (d)(2.3.2)(D) require a HD OBD system to erase a permanent fault code if, among other conditions, the HD OBD system determines, among other conditions, that the malfunction that caused the permanent fault code to be stored is no longer present for a cumulative time period since engine start that is greater than or equal to 600 seconds during a single driving cycle. The amendments clarify that for hybrid vehicles, this criteria would be “cumulative propulsion system active time since engine start” since the engine may not start right after the vehicle is turned on. The amendments will help ensure equivalent vehicle operation time between conventional vehicles and hybrid vehicles. 52

2. In-Use Monitor Performance Ratio Definition Currently, both the HD OBD and the OBD II regulation require manufacturers to track monitor performance by counting the number of monitoring events and the number of driving events. The number of monitoring events is defined as the numerator and the number of driving events is defined 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 operating relative to vehicle operation. a. Section 1968.2(d)(3.2.1: Monitoring Conditions - Diesel PM Filter Performance Monitors and Missing Substrate Monitors 53
The OBD II regulation specifies minimum monitoring ratios for the diesel PM filter filtering performance monitor and the missing substrate monitor. The amendments now allow 2015 through 2018 model year medium-duty vehicles to meet a less stringent minimum in-use performance ratio of 0.100 instead of the previously prescribed in-use performance ratio of 0.336. This amendment will allow manufacturers to gain some experience with these monitors before they are required to use a higher monitoring ratio starting in 2019. b. Subsection 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(B): Denominator Specifications Subsection 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(B) currently describes the specifications for incrementing the denominator. The amendments clarify that the requirements of subsections 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(F), (I), and (J) may supersede the requirements of subsection 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(B) for specific monitors/vehicles since they have

52 See Id, at page 21. 53 This amendment applies solely to the OBD II Requirements. There is no corresponding amendment to the HD OBD Requirements because the HD OBD Requirements already specify minimum monitoring ratios of 0.100 for the diesel PM filter filtering performance monitor and the missing substrate monitor.Waiver Request Support Document

19 certain characteristics that make the requirements in subsection (d)(4.3.2)(B) inappropriate to use. c. Section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(C): Denominator Specifications Section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(C), as originally adopted, specified the denominator incrementing criteria for evaporative system monitors, requiring a cold start condition to be met. The amendments allow monitors for the comprehensive component input component temperature sensors and the engine cooling system input components to use these denominator incrementing criteria as well, since these monitors generally require a cold start condition to enable monitoring.

d. Section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(E) and Section 1968.2(d)(4.3.2)(F): Denominator Specifications The regulation originally required the PM filter active/intrusive injection monitor to increment the denominator if, among other conditions, a regeneration event is commanded for at least 10 seconds, and required the PM sensor heater monitor to increment the denominator if the general denominator criteria are met. The amendments modify sections 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(E) and 1968.2(d)(4.3.2)(F) to now require the PM filter active/intrusive injection monitor and the PM sensor heater monitor to increment the denominator if, among other conditions, the component is commanded to function for at least 10 seconds, which are more appropriate criteria. 54 Additionally, the amendments allow 2010 through 2015 model year engines to use the previously required denominator updating criteria to provide manufacturers lead time to meet the amended requirements. e. Section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(F): Denominator Specifications The regulation originally required the PM sensor monitoring capability monitor to increment the denominator based on the general denominator incrementing criteria. The amendments to section (d)(4.3.2)(F) now allow the monitor to increment the denominator based on manufacturer-proposed alternate criteria, to accommodate manufacturer concerns that the current denominator incrementing criteria may result in the denominator incrementing more often than is appropriate for PM sensors that may be regenerated or used infrequently, which makes frequent monitoring of such sensors difficult. 55
f. Section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(G) and Section 1968.2(d)(4.3.2)(G): Denominator Specifications Sections 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(G) and 1968.2(d)(4.3.2)(G) currently allow monitors of components/emission controls that experience infrequent regeneration events to

54 Staff Report, at pages 22-23. 55 Id. , at page 23.Waiver Request Support Document

20 increment the denominator if, among other conditions, the cumulative engine runtime exceeds 800 minutes (section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(G)) or 500 miles for section 1968.2). The amendments would only allow PM filter performance monitors and PM filter missing substrate monitors to use these criteria from the 2010 through the 2015 model years, after which the PM filter monitor will be subject to the general denominator criteria. The restriction is justified based on the vital role that PM filters in controlling PM emissions. 56
g. Section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(J): Denominator Specifications The newly added section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(J) indicates the criteria under which the general denominator will increment for hybrid vehicles starting with the 2016 model year. This criteria is based on cumulative propulsion system active time and fueled engine operation, since the original general denominator criteria under section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(B) requires time after engine start and therefore does not account for hybrid vehicles where the engine starts later in the trip. 57 In addition, this section allows 2010 through 2015 model year hybrid vehicles to use the current denominator updating criteria in section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(l) to provide lead time for hybrid manufacturers to meet the 2016 model year general denominator incrementing criteria. h. Section 1971.1(d)(4.5.3): Disablement of Numerators and Denominators. Section 1971.1(d)(4.5.3) currently allows HD OBD systems to disable incrementing all numerators and denominators if any component used to determine if the criteria for incrementing the general denominator and evaporative system denominator, including engine cold start criteria, are malfunctioning. The amendments delete the qualifying criterion of incrementing the evaporative system denominator (i.e., the engine cold start criteria), since monitors that do not require a code start can and should still accurately increment the numerators and denominators even if an “engine cold start” can no longer be determined. 3. Section 1971.1(d)(5.1.1) - Standardized Tracking and Reporting of Monitor Performance This section lists the specific diesel components and systems that are required to report in-use monitoring performance data. The amendments delete references to “bank 1” and “bank 2” for the NMHC catalyst, NOx catalyst, and exhaust gas sensor monitors to be consistent with what is required to be reported in SAE J1979 and SAE J1939. 58

56 Id. at pages 22-23. 57 Id. , at page 22. 58 Id . at p.24.Waiver Request Support Document

21 4. Section 1971.1(d)(5.5.2) – Ignition Cycle Counter Section 1971.1(d)(5.5.2) specifies that the ignition cycle counter shall increment if the engine exceeds a specific engine speed for at least two seconds plus or minus one second. The section was amended for hybrid vehicles, requiring the counter to be incremented when the propulsion system active definition is met (i.e., each time the vehicle is operated, without respect to whether the engine is started or used) for at least two seconds plus or minus one second. 59
5. Section 1971.1(d)(7.5.3): Implementation Schedule for AlternateFueled Engines The HD OBD regulation currently allows alternate-fueled engines to delay implementation of “full” OBD systems until the 2020 model year, with 2013 through 2019 model year alternate-fueled engines required to comply with the less comprehensive EMD requirements and basic monitoring of all NOx aftertreatment components. This late start date of 2020 was adopted in 2006 as part of the initial HD OBD regulation. The amendments accelerate the start date for OBD implementation on alternate-fueled engines from the 2020 model year to the 2018 model year based on information that alternate-fueled engine sales are not insignificant, and that manufacturers are currently offering alternate-fueled engines that utilize more diverse conversion solutions than staff anticipated, which can have a much larger impact on the OBD system than simpler conversions, and can also result in several unmonitored major emission control components in addition to the normal impacts of altering correlation to emission thresholds and monitoring frequency. 60 The amendments also require manufacturers to propose a monitoring plan for alternate-fueled engines to ensure all emission control components, which may include both diesel and gasoline-related components, on the engine are properly monitored. 6. Section 1971.1(d)(7.6): 2013 Model Year Hybrid Vehicles The newly added section 1971.1(d)(7.6) allows manufacturers of 2013 model year hybrid vehicles to meet alternative, less stringent requirements in lieu of the requirements of section 1971.1 61

D. Monitoring Requirements for Diesel/Compression-Ignition Engines 62
1. Fuel System Monitoring

59 Id. , at pages 23-24. 60 Id. at pages 16-17. 61 Id. , at pages 10, 12-16. 62 The amendments discussed in this section generally pertain only to requirements contained in title 13, CCR section 1971.1. Amendments that also apply to medium-duty vehicle OBD II Requirements set forth in title 13, CCR section 1968.2 are specifically identified as well.Waiver Request Support Document

22 a. Section 1971.1(e)(1.4.2)(D): Storage of freeze frame conditions The amendments align the freeze frame storage requirements for diesel fuel system monitors with the amended requirements in section (d)(2.2.1)(D)(iii). Specifically, starting in the 2016 model year, HD OBD systems are required to store and erase freeze frame conditions for fuel system faults in conjunction with the storage and erasure of pending fault codes. 63
2. Misfire Monitoring a. Sections 1971.1(e)(2.2) and (e)(2.3.3) and Sections 1968.2(f)(3.2.2) and (f)(3.3.3): Malfunction Criteria and Monitoring Conditions HD OBD systems were previously required to only monitor diesel engines for misfire during engine idle conditions and only for faults that cause one or more cylinders to be continuously misfiring. In addition, 2013 and subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engines and 2010 and subsequent model year light- and medium-duty vehicles equipped with sensors that can detect combustion or combustion quality were required to continuously monitor for misfire under all positive torque engine speeds and load conditions and to detect misfire before emissions exceeded specific thresholds (e.g. , 2.0 times the applicable standards). The amendments now require all heavy-duty and medium-duty diesel engines to continuously monitor for misfire. Heavy-duty diesel engines and light- and medium-duty vehicles that are not equipped with sensors capable of detecting combustion or combustion quality are subject to continuous misfire detection requirements that phase-in beginning with the 2016 model year and require 100 percent of 2018 model year engines to be able to continuously monitor for misfire malfunctions. 64 The amendments also modify the malfunction criteria from an emission threshold-based criterion to a specific misfire percentage criterion (i.e., five percent) to address manufacturers’ concerns regarding the difficulty in establishing a level of misfire that equates to the exceedance of a specific tailpipe emissions standard, and further allow manufacturers to request Executive Officer approval to detect misfires at higher levels of misfire percentage criterion. Further, the continuous misfire monitoring conditions are amended to allow for limited monitoring conditions for engines through the 2018 model year under positive torque conditions up to 75 percent of peak torque (with a minimum 20 percent of peak torque for heavy-duty engines) and up to 75 percent of the maximum engine speed. More comprehensive monitoring

63 15-Day Notice, at page 3. 64 The phase-in provisions specify minimum percentages of engines that are based on projected California sales volumes of all diesel engines and medium-duty vehicles (i.e., engines and medium-duty vehicles that are both equipped and that are not equipped with combustion sensors).Waiver Request Support Document

23 conditions are phased in starting with 2019 model year engines that require monitoring across all positive torque engine speed conditions except those conditions in a limited disablement area of very low torque and high engine speed conditions. Lastly, manufacturers are now allowed to disable continuous misfire monitoring under conditions in which robust detection of misfires is at issue. 65
b. Section 1971.1(e)(2.4.2)(B): Storage of freeze frame conditions These amendments align the freeze frame storage requirements with the amended requirements in section 1971.1(d)(2.2.1)(D)(iii) or (d)(2.2.2)(D). Specifically, starting in the 2016 model year, the manufacturer is required to store and erase freeze frame conditions for fuel system faults in conjunction with the storage and erasure of pending fault codes. 66
3. EGR System Monitoring Section 1971.1(e)(3.2.6) and Section 1968.2(f)(6.2.6): Malfunction Criteria for EGR Catalyst Performance HD OBD and OBD II systems are currently required to monitor EGR catalysts used in EGR systems for all 2013 and subsequent model year engines. Such catalysts are used to treat the exhaust gas before it is recirculated into the intake of the engine to reduce contamination or fouling that might otherwise affect durability of the EGR system. Although failures of an EGR catalyst may not result in an immediate impact on emissions, they could lead to more aggressive deterioration of other EGR system components such as fouling or plugging of the EGR cooler. In response to manufacturer concerns, the amendments now exempt EGR catalysts from being monitored provided manufacturers demonstrate that failures of EGR catalysts will not cause a measurable emissions impact on the criteria pollutants (i.e., NMHC, CO, NOx, and PM) during any reasonable driving condition in which the catalyst is most likely to affect criteria pollutants. 67
4. NMHC Converting Catalyst Monitoring Section 1971.1(e)(5.2.3)(B) and Section 1968.2(f)(1.2.3)(B): Delay Implementation Start Date to 2015. The HD OBD and OBD II regulations previously required monitoring of NMHC catalysts used to generate a feed-gas constituency to assist SCR systems beginning in the 2013 model year. The amendments delay this monitoring

65 Staff Report, at pages 24-26; 15-Day Notice, at pages 3-4. 66 15-Day Notice, at page 4. 67 Staff Report, at page 26.Waiver Request Support Document

24 requirement until the 2015 model year and further exempt manufacturers from this requirement if they can demonstrate that both a complete failure of the component or loss of the function results in less than a 15 percent of the standard increase for any pollutant over an applicable test cycle (e.g., Federal Test Procedure (FTP) or Supplemental Emission Test (SET)) during the engine’s useful life, and that tailpipe emissions are below the standards. This will ensure that any impact is truly ‘minor.’ 68
5. NOx Converting Catalyst Monitoring a. Sections 1971.1(e)(6.2.1) and (e)(6.2.2) and Section 1968.2(f)(2.2.2)(A): Conversion Efficiency and Reductant Delivery Performance Monitoring HD OBD and medium-duty OBD II systems in 2013 and subsequent model year engines were previously required to detect NOx converting catalyst (typically an SCR catalyst) conversion efficiency before NOx emissions exceed the applicable NOx standard plus 0.2 g/bhp-hr. The amendments increase the current HD OBD threshold to the applicable NOx standard plus 0.4 g/bhp-hr starting in the 2013 model year. Beginning with the 2014 model year, manufacturers must phase in a tighter threshold of the applicable NOx standard plus 0.3 g/bhp-hr for 20 percent of 2014 model year diesel engines and 50 percent of 2015 model year diesel engines, with the percentages based on a manufacturer’s projected California sales volume of all heavy-duty diesel engines. For the 2016 model year, manufacturers must meet the applicable NOx standard plus 0.2 g/bhp-hr with the exception that any engines that were phased-in during 2014 or 2015 to the ‘+0.3’ threshold would be able to remain at that threshold in 2016 and would not have to meet the ‘+0.2’ threshold until the 2017 model year. For medium-duty OBD II systems the amendments increase the threshold to the applicable NOx standard plus 0.3 g/bhp-hr from 2013 through 2015. For chassis dynamometer-certified applications, the threshold is 2.0 times the applicable standard. 69
b. Section 1971.1(e)(6.3) and Section 1968.2(f)(2.3.1): Monitoring Conditions for Reductant Delivery Performance Monitoring The regulation previously required continuous monitoring for reductant delivery faults. The amendments now allow HD OBD and OBD II systems to monitor for such faults once per trip.

68 Id. , at pages 28-29. 69 Staff Report, pages 29-31.Waiver Request Support Document

25 6. PM Filter Performance Monitoring a. Section 1971.1(e)(8.2.1) and Section 1968.2(f)(9.2.1): Increasing PM Threshold 2013 through 2015 model year heavy-duty engines subject to full OBD and all 2016 and subsequent model year engines were previously required to detect PM filter performance faults before emissions exceeded either 0.03 g/bhp-hr from an applicable emission-test cycle or the applicable PM standard plus 0.02 g/bhp-hr. The amendments increase these thresholds to either 0.05 g/bhp-hr from an applicable emission test cycle or the applicable PM standard plus 0.04 g/bhp-hr starting in the 2013 model year engines. The amendments also allow manufacturers to either (1) use a threshold of 0.05 g/bhp-hr or the applicable PM standard plus 0.04 g/bhp-hr for 20 percent of 2014 and 2015 model year engines without the provisions to exclude specific failure modes, or (2) use a threshold of 0.03 g/bhp-hr or the applicable PM standard plus 0.02 g/bhp-hr for 50 percent of 2015 model year engines without the provisions to exclude specific failure modes. 70 The amendments also add new section1971.1 (e)(8.2.1)(F), which prohibits manufacturers from using an alternate phase-in schedule for these monitoring requirements. 2013 and subsequent model year medium-duty vehicles and engines subject to the OBD II regulation were previously required to detect PM filter performance faults before emissions exceeded 0.03 g/bhp-hr from an applicable emission-test cycle. For the OBD II regulation, the amendments to section 1968.2(f)(9.2.1) retain the 0.03 g/bhp-hr PM threshold, but with amendments previously approved in January 2012, manufacturers are eligible to receive ARB approval to exclude specific failure modes. For the 2014 and 2015 model years, medium-duty manufacturers can either: (1) implement monitoring to a PM threshold of 0.03 g/bhp-hr without the failure mode exemptions on at least 20 percent of their 2014 and 2015 annual model year medium-duty diesel vehicle volumes, and certify the remaining vehicles to the 0.03 g/bhp-hr threshold with the failure mode exemption or (2) elect to continue complying with the 2013 threshold with the failure mode exemption in the 2014 model year. However, for the 2015 model year, manufacturers need to certify at least 50 percent of their 2015 model year medium-duty diesel volume to the threshold of 0.03 without the failure mode exemption.

70 Staff Report, at pages 32-34.Waiver Request Support Document

26 b. Section 1971.1(e)(8.2.4) and Section 1968.2(f)(9.2.4)(A): NMHC Conversion Monitoring The HD OBD regulation previously required manufacturers to monitor the NMHC conversion capability of catalyzed PM filters starting with the 2013 model year. OBD II systems were required to monitor the NMHC conversion capability of catalyzed PM filters starting with the 2015 model year. The amendments delay the 2013 model year HD OBD monitoring requirement until the 2015 model year. The amendments to section 1971.1(e)(8.2.4) and section 1968.2(f)(9.2.4)(A) also allow manufacturers to be exempt from this monitoring requirement if a malfunction cannot cause emissions to exceed certain criteria. 71 The amendments also require that 2016 and subsequent model year engines that use catalyzed PM filters to generate feedgas constituency (e.g., NO2 to assist SCR systems), be monitored for the capability of the system to generate desired feedgas, but allow manufacturers to be exempt from this monitoring requirement if a malfunction cannot cause emissions to exceed certain criteria. 72
7. Exhaust Gas Sensor Monitoring a. Section 1971.1(e)(9.2.2)(A) and Section 1968.2(f)(5.2.2)(A): NOx and PM Sensor Malfunction Criteria The HD OBD and medium-duty OBD II regulations originally required 2013 and subsequent model year engines to detect NOx sensor performance faults before emissions exceeded the applicable NOx standard by more than 0.2 g/bhp-hr, instead of the previous threshold of ‘+0.4’ g/bhp-hr. The amendments delay implementing the ‘+0.2 g/bhp-hr 2013 model year threshold until the 2014 model year, at which time manufacturers are required to phase in a tighter threshold of ‘+0.3’ on 20 percent of their 2014 model year heavy-duty engine volumes and 50 percent of their 2015 model year heavy-duty engine volumes. For the 2016 model year, manufacturers are required to meet the ‘+0.2’ threshold with the exception that any products that were phased-in during 2014 or 2015 to the ‘+0.3’ threshold would be able to remain at that threshold in 2016 and would not have to meet the ‘+0.2’ threshold until the 2017 model year. The amendments also add an NMHC threshold to the HD OBD regulation starting in the 2016 model year, requiring manufacturers to detect a fault before emissions exceed two times the applicable NMHC standard. 73

71 If no malfunction of the catalyzed PM filter’s NMHC conversion capability causes emissions to increase by 15 percent or more of the applicable standard over an applicable test cycle (e.g., Federal Test Procedure (FTP) or Supplemental Emission Test (SET)) during the engine’s useful life or exceeds the applicable full useful life standard as measured from an applicable emission test. 72 See fn. 42; Staff Report at pp. 34-35. 73 Id. , at pages 35-37.Waiver Request Support Document

27 The amendments to section 1968.2(f)(5.2.2)(A) now require 2013 through 2015 model year medium-duty vehicles to meet a threshold of ‘+0.3’ (i.e., the applicable NOx standard + 0.3 g/bhp-hr) instead of the ‘+0.2’ current threshold. b. Section 1971.1(e)(9.3.1) and Section 1968.2(f)(5.3.1)(A): NOx and PM Sensor Monitoring Conditions The regulation originally required the NOx sensor monitoring capability monitor to run every time the monitoring conditions were met. The amendments now require the monitor to run once per driving cycle, since some monitors would not be able to meet the prior requirements if they were intrusive monitors. The regulation was also amended to now require the NOx sensor monitoring capability monitor to track and report the in-use monitor performance data starting with the 2016 model year. 74
Both the HD OBD and medium-duty OBD II regulations previously did not require manufacturers to track and report the diesel NOx/PM sensor “monitoring capability” monitors (sections 1971.1 (e)(9.2.2)(D) and 1968.2(f)(5.2.2)(D)), but instead only required manufacturers to track and report diesel NOx/PM sensor performance monitors that were emission threshold-based (sections 1971.1(e)(9.2.2)(A) and 1968.2(f)(5.2.2)(A)). However, because many of these sensors do not have emission-threshold based monitors, and thus would only be subject to monitoring if a malfunction causes the sensor to no longer be sufficient for use as an OBD system monitoring device, and because NOx and PM sensors are important for monitoring major aftertreatment emission control devices, the amendments now require HD OBD and OBD II systems to track and report the diesel NOx/PM sensor “monitoring capability” monitors for 2016 and subsequent model year heavy-duty engines and medium-duty vehicles. E. Monitoring Requirements for Gasoline/Spark-Ignited Engines. 1. Section 1971.1(f)(2.3.6): Misfire Monitoring The regulation originally required engines that employ engine shutoff strategies that do not require the vehicle operator to restart the engine to continue driving to monitor for misfire no later than the end of the second crankshaft revolution “after each engine restart”. The amendments now require monitoring no later than the end of the second crankshaft revolution “after engine fueling begins for the initial start and after each time fueling resumes.” 75
2. Section 1971.1 (f)(5.2.4): Secondary Air System Monitoring The regulation originally required manufacturers to monitor the secondary air

74 Id. , at page 24. 75 Staff Report, at page 37.Waiver Request Support Document

28 system for malfunctions prior to either a decrease or an increase from the specified air flow that would cause emissions to exceed 1.5 times the standards. Further, if no fault that caused a decrease or an increase in air flow could cause emissions to exceed 1.5 times the standards, the manufacturer was required to detect a fault when “no detectable amount of air flow is delivered during normal operation of the secondary air system.” Manufacturers were not required to functionally monitor for increases in air flow that do not cause emissions to exceed 1.5 times the standards. The amendments now require manufacturers to detect a fault when no detectable amount of air flow is delivered only if no fault that causes a decrease in air flow could cause emissions to exceed the threshold. The amendments also require that if no fault that causes an increase in air flow could also cause emissions to exceed the threshold (1.5 times the standard), that manufacturers are required to detect a fault when the system has reached its control limits such that it cannot reduce air flow during normal operation of the secondary air system beginning in the 2016 model year. 76
3. Section 1971.1 (f)(7.1): Evaporative System Monitoring The amendments clarify that manufacturers of alternate-fueled engines that are subject to evaporative emission standards and evaporative system monitoring requirements are required to submit a plan for Executive Officer approval regarding what monitoring they would do and its equivalence to the type of evaporative system monitoring required for gasoline applications. 77
F. Monitoring Requirements for All Engines. 1. Comprehensive Component Monitoring a. Sections 1971.1(g)(3.1.4) and (g)(3.1.5): Exceptions for Hybrid Vehicles The amendments incorporate newly added section 1971.1(d)(7.6), which allows manufacturers of 2013 model year hybrid vehicles to meet the alternative requirements set forth in sections 1971.1(d)(7.6.1) through (d)(7.6.5) in lieu of meeting all other requirements of section 1971.1. b. Section 1971.1(g)(3.2.2)(B)(ii)d.: Diesel Idle Control System Monitoring The regulation originally required manufacturers to detect diesel idle control system faults if the system could not achieve target idle speed with a fuel injection quantity within +/- 50 percent of the fuel quantity necessary to achieve

76 Id. , at pages 37-38. 77 Id. at page 18.Waiver Request Support Document

29 the target speed for a properly functioning engine and the “given” operating conditions. The amendments now require the manufacturer to consider the “known”, not “given”, operating conditions. 78
c. Section 1971.1(g)(3.2.2)(F) and Section 1968.2(f)(15.2.2)(F)(ii): Malfunction Criteria for Certain Output Components Section 1971.1(g)(3.2.2)(F) originally required manufacturers to monitor fuel system components for proper compensation starting with the 2013 model year. The amendments delay this requirement until the 2015 model year. The amendments to section 1971.1(g)(3.2.2)(F) and section 1968.2(f)(15.2.2)(F)(ii) also added language to allow manufacturers to be exempt from this monitoring requirement if a malfunction cannot cause emissions to exceed certain criteria. 79
2. Exceptions to Monitoring Requirements a. Section 1971.1(g)(5.1) and Section 1968.2(f)(17.1): Revision of Emission Threshold or Malfunction Criteria Section 1971.1(g)(5.1) originally allowed manufacturers to indefinitely revise the PM filter filtering performance malfunction criteria to exclude detection of specific failure modes under certain conditions. The amendments limit this allowance to the 2010 through 2015 model years, since the allowance provides an unknown risk for failures that can cause high PM emissions to go undetected, which should not be allowed on all future engines and is not needed based on new monitoring techniques being developed for future engines. 80
Section 1968.2(f)(17.1) allows manufacturers to revise the required malfunction criteria if certain conditions are met. The amendments extend the allowance for medium-duty vehicles to not detect specific failure modes of the PM filter from the 2013 to the 2015 model year. 81

78 Id. , at pages 38-39. 79 Id., at pages 39-40. 80 Id., at pages 33-34. 81 The amendments to section 1971.1(g)(5) and 1968.2(f)(17.1) are consistent although they apply to different model years of engines and vehicles. The initial OBD II Requirements applied to 2004 and newer model year medium-duty engines and vehicles, and CARB amended the OBD II Requirements in 2007 to first allow manufacturers to revise malfunction criteria for specific PM filter failure modes for 2007 through 2012 MY medium-duty vehicles. The amendments to section 1968.2(f)(17.1) now extend that exemption to 2007 through 2015 MY medium-duty vehicles. When CARB adopted the initial HD OBD Requirements in 2005 that apply to 2010 and newer MY HD engines and vehicles, it incorporated the same provisions of section 1968.2(f)(17.1) that allow manufacturers to indefinitely revise malfunction criteria for specific PM filter failure modes. However, for the reasons set forth in the Staff Report for the 2013 Amendments, CARB decided to limit manufacturers’ ability to utilize this provision and has accordingly limited this provision to only apply to 2010 through 2015 MY engines. This limitation did not include the 2007Waiver Request Support Document

30 Sections 1968.2(f)(17.1.5) and (f)(17.1.6) describe the monitoring requirementsand malfunction criteria for medium-duty diesel vehicles certified to a chassisdynamometer tailpipe emission standard. The OBD II regulation previously required manufacturers of medium-duty diesel vehicles certified on a chassis dynamometer to request CARB’s approvalof the emission-based malfunction criteria in lieu of the engine dynamometerbased malfunction criteria (e.g., 2.0 times the applicable standards) for each applicable diesel monitor in section 1968.2(f). Increasingly more medium-duty diesel vehicles are being certified on chassis dynamometers, and the amendments in section 1968.2(f)(17.1.6) specify that, with a few exceptions, monitors on 2016 and subsequent model year medium-duty diesel vehicles certified to a chassis dynamometer tailpipe emission standard are required to use the same malfunction criteria as those applicable to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles certified to a chassis dynamometer tailpipe emissions standard. The exceptions include the following. Since the light-duty malfunction criteria lack a NOx malfunction threshold (unlike the medium-duty engine dynamometer-based criteria, which does), manufacturers must detect NMHC catalyst conversion efficiency monitoring faults before emissions exceed 1.75 times the applicable FTP, NMHC, or NOx standards. Similarly, for diesel misfire monitoring, since the OBD II regulation currently requires continuous monitoring of light-duty emission threshold-based malfunction criteria while the medium-duty engine dynamometer-based criteria do not require continuous monitoring, the amendments require manufacturers to detect a malfunction based on the medium-duty engine dynamometer-based malfunction criteria and monitoring requirements. The amendments eliminate the requirement for manufacturers to individually propose chassis-based thresholds and seek Executive Officer approval and would instead provide clear monitoring thresholds for all manufacturers. 82 Due to these new requirements, the amendments now limit the current requirements in section 1968.2(f)(17.1.5) to the 2004 through 2015 model years b. Section 1971.1(g)(5.7): Monitor Disablement at Low Temperatures The amendments add new section 1971.1(g)(5.7), which exempts manufacturers from monitoring an electronic powertrain component/system if a malfunction of the component does not affect emissions during any reasonable driving condition and does not affect the diagnostic strategy for any other monitored component or system when the ambient temperature is above 20 degrees Fahrenheit. The

through the 2009 MY engines and vehicles because the HD OBD Requirements only apply to 2010 and newer model year engines and vehicles.

82 Id . at pages 47-48.Waiver Request Support Document

31 ambient temperature in this case is determined based on a temperature sensor monitored by the OBD system (e.g., IAT sensor). 83
c. Section 1971.1(g)(5.8) and Section 1968.2(f)(17.2.3): Alternate Phase-in Schedules for Small Volume Manufacturers The amendments add new section 1971.1(g)(5.8), which allows small volumemanufacturers to use alternate phase-in schedules in lieu of the specified phasein schedules in the regulation. Such phase-in schedules provide manufacturers more lead-time to meet regulatory requirements compared to originally prescribed phase-in schedules. The amendments define the allowed alternate phase-in schedules for small volume manufacturers and the allowed manufacturer-defined phase-in schedules for diesel NOx converting catalyst and NOx and PM sensor monitors. 84 The amendments to section 1968.2(f)(17.2.3) define alternate phase-in schedule for the diesel PM filter monitor that can be used in lieu of the required phase-in schedule. G. Standardization Requirements 1. Section 1971.1(h)(1): Reference Documents The amendments update the list of SAE and ISO documents that are incorporated by reference into the HD OBD regulation. It is a common industry practice to update technical standards to provide greater specificity and clarity. 85
2. Section 1971.1(h)(2): Diagnostic Connector The amendments to section 1971.1(h)(2.5), which were made to account for the new 500 kbps baud rate variant of SAE J1939, requires the diagnostic connector to meet the Type 1 or Type SAE 1939-13 specifications if the 250 kbps baud rate of J1939 is used and to meet the Type 2 specifications if the 500 kbps baud rate of J1939 is used. The amendments to section 1971.1(h)(2.6), which originally allowed manufacturers to have an additional non-OBD connector that conforms to the same specifications as the OBD diagnostic connector, now prohibits the additional non-OBD connector from being located in the same area as the OBD diagnostic connector starting in the 2016 model year. 86
3. Section 1971.1(h)(3.2): SAE J1939 Communication Protocol The amendments clarify that for engines using the SAE J1939 communication protocol, the manufacturer may use either the 250 or 500 kbps baud rate

83 15-Day Notice, at page 5. 84 15-Day Notice, at pages 5-6 85 Staff Report at page 40. 86 Staff Report at pages 40-41.Waiver Request Support Document

32 versions up through the 2015 model year, but would be prohibited from using the 250 kbps baud rate version starting in the 2016 model year. 87
4. Section 1971.1(h)(4): Required Emission Related Functions a. Section 1971.1(h)(4.1): Readiness Status Under the pre-amended regulation, manufacturers were required to incorporate readiness status of several major emission control systems and components into their OBD systems, which helps determine if the OBD monitors have performed their system evaluations. The amendments clarify which monitors are required to be included in the determination of readiness status to ensure consistency in implementation among all manufacturers. The amendments also delete the allowance in section 1971.1(h)(4.1.1) that allowed manufacturers to request Executive Officer approval to set the readiness status to “complete” without monitoring actually having been completed if monitoring is disabled on multiple driving cycles due to extreme operating conditions (e.g., cold ambient temperatures, high altitudes). 88
b. Sections 1971.1(h)(4.2.2) and (h)(4.2.3)(E): Data Stream Sections 1971.1(h)(4.2.2) and (h)(4.2.3) were amended as they apply to 2016 and subsequent model year engines to require manufacturers to provide some additional data stream information. The HD OBD system on diesel engines must now provide information on the fuel rate (mg/stroke), engine torque, and modeled exhaust flow (mass/time). The HD OBD system on both diesel and gasoline engines are required, if so equipped, to report data stream information on such things as reductant quality sensor output and corrected NOx sensor output. 89
c. Sections 1971.1(h)(4.4.1)(F)(iv) and (4.4.2)(F)(iv): Erasing of Permanent Fault Codes The regulation previously allowed permanent fault codes to be erased if the individual control module containing the permanent fault code was reprogrammed and the vehicle/engine readiness status for all monitors (in all emission-related modules) indicated “not complete”. The amendments now allow manufacturers to limit the resetting of readiness bits if a permanent fault code is erased in a certain control module to only those modules that support readiness for major components (i.e., any readiness bits other than comprehensive components). While this does still require some form of ‘coordinated’ code clearing, it limits the number of involved modules. For example, if a vehicle has an engine control unit (ECU) that supports readiness for

87 Id., at page 40. 88 Staff Report, at pages 41-42; 15-Day Notice, at pages 6-7. 89 Staff Report, at page 42.Waiver Request Support Document

33 major components and five auxiliary emission-related modules that don’t support readiness for any major components, and if one of the auxiliary modules has a permanent fault code stored and that module is reprogrammed and erases the permanent fault code, the OBD system would only need to ensure that the engine ECU resets all readiness bits and not that all five of the auxiliary modules also reset readiness. 90
d. Section 1971.1(h)(4.5.5): Test Results when Fault Memory Cleared The regulation, as initially adopted, required test results and limits to report values of zero after the OBD system fault memory was cleared. The amendments require 2016 and subsequent model year vehicles using the SAE J1939 protocol to report non-zero values corresponding to “test not complete” for the test results and limits. 91
e. Section 1971.1(h)(4.7.5): Software Calibration Verification Number (CVN) The regulation, as originally adopted, required the CVN information to be made available through the data link connector to a generic scan tool in accordance with SAE specifications except for the following: immediately after a reprogramming event; a non-volatile memory clearance; or the first 30 seconds of engine operation after a volatile memory clearance. The amendments extend the timeframes after a memory clear to 120 seconds and clarify when it is acceptable and not acceptable for the on-board computer to send a message directing the scan tool to wait or resend the request message after the delay. 92
f. Section 1971.1(h)(4.8.3): Reprogrammable Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and Engine Serial Numbers (ESN) The regulation originally specified that when the VIN or ESN was reprogrammed, the OBD system was required to erase all emission-related diagnostic information. The amendments now limit the erasure to control modules that reported supported readiness for a readiness bit other than the bit for the comprehensive component monitors. 93
5. Section 1971.1(h)(6): Service Information The regulation originally described specific service information requirements to apply to HD OBD systems. The amendments delete these requirements since

90 Id., at page 43. 91 15-Day Notice, at page 7. 92 Staff Report, at pages 43-44. 93 Id., at page 43.Waiver Request Support Document

34 the requirements are prescribed in a separate ARB regulation, section 1969 of title 13, CCR. 94
H. Certification Demonstration Testing 1. Required Testing of Components a. Section 1971.1(i)(3.1.2) and Section 1968.2(h)(4.3): Diesel Misfire Monitor The amendments to section 1971.1(e)(2.2) and section 1968.2(f)(3.2) require continuous misfire monitoring for all diesel engines starting in 2016, and change the malfunction criterion from an emission threshold-based criterion to a specific misfire percentage. However, section 1971.1(e)(2.2.5) and section 1968.2(f)(3.2.5) allow manufacturers to increase the misfire percentage malfunction criterion if a misfire cannot cause emissions to exceed specific thresholds. The amendments to section 1971.1(i)(3.1.2) and section 1968.2(h)(4.3) require manufacturers to conduct demonstration testing of the diesel misfire monitor to verify manufacturer requests to increase the misfire percentage malfunction criterion under section 1971.1(e)(2.2.5) or section 1968.2(f)(3.2.5). 95
b. Section 1971.1(i)(3.2.1): Gasoline Fuel System The amendments add section 1971.1(i)(3.2.1)(C), which requires manufacturers to conduct demonstration testing of the air-fuel cylinder imbalance monitor. 96
c. Section 1971.1(i)(3.2.7): Exhaust Gas Sensors The regulation, as originally adopted, specified demonstration testing requirements for “exhaust gas sensors” on gasoline engines. The amendments limit the amount of testing manufacturers are required to perform by requiring that testing be done on only certain response rate malfunctions (e.g., worst case malfunctions) rather than all six response rate malfunctions. 97
2. Section 1971.1(i)(5.1.3): Testing Evaluation Protocol The amendments clarify the requirements for evaluating demonstration tests. Specifically, the regulation originally listed evaluation provisions for catalyst and PM filter systems. The amendments clarify the test procedures for catalyst faults and other faults where default actions are taken subsequent to fault detection. 98

94 15-Day Notice, at page 7. 95 Staff Report, at page 44; 15-Day Notice, at page 7-8. 96 Staff Report, at page 44. 97 Id. , at page 44-45. 98 Staff Report, at page 45.Waiver Request Support Document

35 I. Certification Documentation 1. Certification Application a. Section 1971.1(j)(2.6) and Section 1968.2(i)(2.5.2): Diesel Misfire Monitor Data The amendments now require manufacturers to provide misfire monitor data for the newly required continuous diesel misfire monitors prescribed in section 1971.1 (e)(2) and in section 1968.2(f)(3). 99
b. Section 1971.1(j)(2.16): Cover Letter The amendments now require manufacturers to include in the cover letter information about all other issues that apply to the engine to assist staff in reviewing the application. c. Section 1971.1(j)(2.18): In-Use Monitor Performance To assist staff in reviewing applications, the amendments now require manufacturers to provide information about the components/systems required to track and report in-use monitor performance, the corresponding diagnostics used to increment the numerator for each component/system, and a description of the numerator and denominator incrementing specifications. d. Section 1971.1(j)(2.19): Test Results The amendments now require manufacturers to include a list of the test results and the corresponding diagnostics for each test result to assist staff in reviewing the application. e. Section 1971.1(j)(2.20): Timeline The amendments now require manufacturers to include a timeline showing the start of engine and vehicle production for each engine family and the required deadlines for production engine/vehicle evaluation testing required under section (l) to assist staff in reviewing the application.

J. Deficiencies 1. Section 1971.1(k)(4): Carry-Over Deficiencies The regulation originally allowed manufacturers to only carry over deficiencies up to a maximum of three model years, provided the manufacturers demonstrated

99 Staff Report, at pages 25-26; and page 83.Waiver Request Support Document

36 that substantial hardware changes were needed to correct the deficiency. The amendments allow manufacturers to carry over deficiencies for up to four model years (i.e., deficiencies first granted in the 2010 model year may be carried over through the 2013 model year), provided the manufacturer can demonstrate that substantial hardware changes are needed to correct the deficiency. The amendments also allow manufacturers to carry over deficiencies first granted in the 2011 model year into the 2014 model year without demonstrating the need for hardware changes. 100
2. Section 1971.1(k)(6.1): Retroactive Deficiencies The regulation originally only allowed manufacturers to be granted a retroactive deficiency during either the first six months after the start of engine production or the first three months after the start of vehicle production, whichever is later. The amendments increase the criteria from three months to six months after the start of vehicle production. 101
3. Section 1971.1(k)(7): Deficiencies for PM Filter and PM Sensor Monitors For engines with PM filter filtering performance monitors that utilize the PM sensor in the 2013 through 2015 model years, the amendments now allow manufacturers to be granted free deficiencies for the PM filter monitor, PM sensor monitor, and PM sensor heater monitor. 102
4. Section 1971.1(k)(8): Deficiencies for Hybrid Vehicles For hybrid vehicles, the amendments allow 2014 model year vehicles previously certified with deficiencies in 2013 to have the 2014 model year be considered the first model year for the deficiencies with regards to the carry-over provisions. The amendments provide manufacturers with two additional free deficiencies during the 2013 through 2015 model years. 103

K. Production Engine/Vehicle Evaluation Testing 1. Sections 1971.1(l)(1.4) and (1.5): Verification of Standardized Requirements Section 1971.1(l)(1.4.3)(E) was amended to require that the standardization testing verify that the MIL command status can be properly communicated to a scan tool in conjunction with emission-related fault code and that this information

100 15-Day Notice, at page 8. 101 Staff Report, at pages 45-46. 102 Id. , at page 9. 103 Id. , at page 46.Waiver Request Support Document

37 be made available from each diagnostic and emission critical electronic powertrain control unit to ensure the correct information is made available and that the OBD system as a whole is working as certified. Section 1971.1(l)(1.5.1) was amended to require manufacturers to submit the test results to ARB. 2. Section 1971.1(l)(2.1): Verification of Monitoring Requirements The regulation originally required manufacturers to verify the monitoring requirements on an engine no later than either six months after the start of engine production or three months after the start of vehicle production, whichever is later. The amendments increase the criteria from three months after the start of vehicle production to six months after the start of vehicle production. 104
3. Section 1971.1(l)(2.3.6): Exemption from Testing of Specific Diagnostics The regulation originally exempted manufacturers from testing specific diagnostics if the testing would cause physical damage to the vehicle. The amendments now also exempt manufacturers from testing specific diagnostics if the testing cannot be done without jeopardizing the safety of the tester.

III. SUMMARY OF HD OBD AND OBD II ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS A summary of the substantive amendments to the HD OBD Enforcement and OBD II Enforcement regulations is provided below. 105
A. Section 1971.5(a)(3) and Section 1968.5(a)(3): Definitions of “Nonconforming OBD System” The HD OBD and OBD II enforcement regulations establish procedures to ensure that vehicles and engines certified for sale in California are equipped with OBD systems that properly function and meet the purposes and requirements of sections 1971.1 and 1968.2, respectively, and that OBD systems that fail to meet those requirements are nonconforming and subject to remedial action, including recall. The amendments to the HD and OBD II regulations include a specific definition of “emission standard.” The amendments to the HD OBD and OBD II enforcement regulations now modify the preexisting term “nonconforming OBD system” to reference the new definition of emission standard. Specifically, the amendments now define a nonconforming OBD system as an OBD system on a production engine/vehicle that has been determined not to meet the emission standards of sections 1971.1 and 1968.2. Additionally, for purposes of clarity, the reference in the definitions to tailpipe emission standards has been replaced with

104 Staff Report, at page 48. 105 Staff Report, at pages 48-51.Waiver Request Support Document

38 the term “exhaust emission standards,” a term that is more generally used but has the same meaning. 106
B. Section 1971.5(b)(3)(D)(ii)b and Section 1968.5(b)(3)(D)(ii)b: Engines to be Included in a Test Sample Group: The HD OBD and OBD II enforcement regulations specify criteria for procuring engines/vehicles for the test sample group used to evaluate if a monitor is in compliance with the in-use monitoring performance requirements, and require the test sample group to include engines/vehicles with denominators for that monitor meeting a minimum required value. The regulations previously required many PM filter-related monitors and PM sensor monitors to have denominator values of at least 150 or 300, depending on the denominator incrementing criteria being used. Many of these monitors, however, required a PM filter regeneration event to occur, which would have required such engines/vehicles to have accumulated very high mileage in order to be acceptable as a test sample group. In light of the recent trend in industry to further lengthen intervals between regeneration events, this criterion will become even more restrictive in the future. The amendments therefore decrease the minimum denominator needed for the diesel PM filter, PM sensor, and NMHC converting catalyst monitors. 107
C. Section 1971.5(b)(6)(B) and Sections 1968.5(b)(6)(A) and (b)(6)(B): Finding of Nonconformance after Enforcement Testing As previously discussed, the amendments modify the denominator incrementing criteria for the PM filter filtering performance monitor and PM filter missing substrate monitor in both the HD OBD andOBD II regulations. Specifically, the amendments now require these monitors to increment the denominators using only the general denominator criteria starting in the 2016 model year. In addition, the OBD II regulation allows manufacturers to certify these monitors to a lower interim in-use ratio of 0.100 on 2016 through 2018 model year medium-duty vehicles. Because the new denominator will be incremented more often than the previous denominator, the amendments relax the nonconformance criteria and mandatory recall enforcement provisions in the first few years that the monitors start using this new denominator. The OBD II enforcement regulation already has nonconformance criteria for monitors certified to an in-use ratio of 0.100 and do not subject these monitors to mandatory recall, so minimal changes are needed to address such amendments. The amendments to the HD OBD enforcement regulation allow the PM filter filtering performance monitor and PM filter missing substrate monitor on 2016 through 2018 model year engines to use less stringent criteria to determine nonconformance. Specifically, while other monitors on 2016 and subsequent

106 15-Day Notice at page 11. 107 Staff Report at page 49.Waiver Request Support Document

39 model year engines would be considered nonconforming if the average in-use monitor performance ratio of engines in the test sample group is less than 0.088 or if at least 66 percent of the engines have an in-use ratio of less than 0.100, the PM filter filtering performance monitor and PM filter missing substrate monitor would be considered nonconforming if the average in-use ratio is less than 0.050 or if at least 66 percent of the engines have an in-use ratio of less than 0.050. Further, these monitors will not be subject to mandatory recall for the 2016 through the 2018 model years. 108
The amendments to section 1968.5(b)(6)(A) modify the existing nonconformance criteria for OBD II emission testing of intermediate and final diesel thresholds to account for the new interim thresholds for the NOx converting catalyst monitor, NOx sensor monitor, and PM filter monitor in sections 1968.2(f)(2), (f)(5), and (f)(9). D. Ordered Remedial Action – Mandatory Recall 1. Section 1971.5(d)(3)(A)(i) and Section 1968.5(c)(3)(A)(i) The amendments allow PM filter filtering performance and missing substrate monitors on 2016 through 2018 model year engines to be exempt from mandatory recall based on in-use performance ratios. 109
2. Section 1971.5(d)(3)(A)(iii) and Section 1968.5(c)(3)(A)(iii): The amendments add mandatory recall criteria for diesel misfire monitors, setting the recall level at more than 10 percentage points above the misfire malfunction criteria starting in the 2019 model year. 110
3. Section 1971.5(d)(3)(A)(vi) and Section 1968.5(c)(3)(A)(vi) The amendments add mandatory recall criteria for the PM filter monitor, requiring recall if the PM filter monitor cannot detect a missing substrate fault or cannot detect a fault that causes emissions to exceed the emission level of the engine with the PM filter substrate completely removed. 111

E. Other Amendments As discussed in the Staff Report and 15-Day Notice, other amendments to the HD OBD and OBD II Enforcement regulations were made to clarify existing requirements.

108 Staff Report at pages 49-50. 109 Staff Report at pages 49-50. 110 Staff Report at page 50. 111 Staff Report at page 50.Waiver Request Support Document

40 V. WAIVER ANALYSIS A. Criteria for Granting Waivers of Preemption under CAA Section 209(b) and Confirmations that Amendments are Within the Scope of Previous Waivers Section 209(b) of the CAA sets forth the protocol for granting California 112 waivers from the general preemption of section 209(a), which prohibits states from adopting and enforcing standards and other requirements relating to the control of emissions from motor vehicles. Under section 209(b), the Administrator must grant a waiver to California 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 Administrator finds that (1) the state’s protectiveness determination is arbitrary and capricious, (2) California does not need separate state standards tomeet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or (3) the state standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the CAA. In granting the initial waiver for the OBD II regulation in 1995, and for both the initial HD OBD regulation and for the 2010 HD OBD amendments applicable to 2013 and later model year HD OBD systems, the Administrator concluded that the record was devoid of sufficient evidence to support denial of the waiver. 113
In considering whether to grant waivers 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 validity of California’s determination that its standards are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards and (2) whether the enforcement procedures are consistent with section 202(a). 114
The Administrator has applied a similar analysis in finding 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 procedure, the change may be included within the scope of the previous waiver if it does not

112 CAA section 209(b) provides for granting a waiver to “any State that has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966.” California is the only State that meets this eligibility criterion for granting waivers. See, e.g. , S. Rep. No. 90-403, at 632 (1967) and Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association v. EPA (MEMA I) (D.C. Cir. 1979) 627 F.2d 1095, 1101 fn. 1. 113 61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996), 73 Fed.Reg. 52042 (Sept, 8, 2008), 77 Fed.Reg. 73459 (December 10, 2012). 114 Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association v. EPA (MEMA) (D.C. Cir. 1979) 627 F.2. 1095, 1111, 1113.Waiver Request Support Document

41 undermine California’s determination 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 section 202(a) of the [CAA], and raises no new issues affecting the Administrator’s previous waiver determination. 115
B. Principles Followed in Granting CAA Section 209(b) Waivers 1. The Opponents of a Waiver Bearthe Burden of Opposing the Waiver Request In considering a waiver or a within the scope waiver request, California’s regulations are presumed to satisfy the criteria for granting a waiver, and the burden to show otherwise is on those persons challenging the waiver request. 116 As held by the court in MEMA and long followed by EPA: The language of the 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. 117
2. The Scope of a Waiver Hearing Should Be Limited The scope of the Administrator’s inquiry in determining whether to deny a waiver request is limited by the express terms of CAA section 209(b)(1). Once California determines that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards, the Administrator must grant the waiver unless one of the three specified findings can be made. This reading of the statute is consistent with the decision in MEMA I and prior EPA waiver decisions interpreting CAA section 209(b), which hold that the review of California’s decision to adopt separate standards is a narrow one. 118 In granting the waiver for the OBD II regulation in 1996, Administrator Carol Browner concluded that she must grant a waiver if she could not find sufficient evidence in the record to support any of the above listed criteria that would dictate not granting the waiver. 119 Much earlier Administrator William D. Ruckleshaus stated:

115 Decision Document accompanying scope of waiver determination in 51 Fed.Reg. 12391 (April 10, 1986), at p. 2 (footnotes omitted); see also 46 Fed.Reg. 36742 (July 15, 1981). 116 Manufacturers Association v. EPA (MEMA) (D.C. Cir. 1979) 627 F.2d 1095, 1121

. 117 Id .; See also Decision Document accompanying OBD II Waiver Determination, 61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996), at pages. 15-16. 118 See 40 Fed.Reg. 23102, 23103 (May 28, 1975). 119 61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996).Waiver Request Support Document

42 The law makes it clear that the waiver request cannot be denied unless the specific findings designated in the statute can properly be made. The issue of whether a proposed California requirement is likely to result in only marginal improvement in air quality not commensurate with its cost or is otherwise an arguably unwise exercise of regulatory power is not legally pertinent to my decision under section 209 . . . . 120
3. Deference Must Be Accorded to California’s Policy Judgments As indicated in the waiver decisions cited above, in granting waivers to California’s motor vehicle program, EPA has routinely deferred to the policy judgments of California’s decision-makers. EPA has recognized that the intent of Congress in creating a limited review of California’s determinations regarding its need for separate standards was to ensure that the federal government did not second-guess the wisdom of state policy. 121
In 2009 EPA reiterated its recognition that Congress intended EPA to show great deference to California’s decision making when analyzing a waiver request for California’s greenhouse gas standards for new vehicles. 122 In that decision, the Administrator recognized that Congress has had the opportunity to restrict California’s ability to obtain a waiver and has had instead elected to highlight the utility of California’s flexibility to adopta complete program of motor vehicle emission controls as the state saw fit. The Administrator found that Congress has intended “to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare.” 123

VI. THE 2013 AMENDMENTS TO THE HD OBD MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 1971.1 AND TO THE HD OBD ENFORCEMENT REGULATION IN SECTION 1975.1 EITHER MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A NEW WAIVER OR FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED WAIVER.
CARB submits that for the reasons set forth below in section VI, and in the rulemaking documents associated with the 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD and OBD II Requirements and Enforcement regulations, the Administrator must grant California the requested waiver actions as the Administrator has no basis under the criteria of CAA section 209(b) to deny California’s request.

A. A New Waiver Should Be Granted for Those 2013 Amendments to

120 36 Fed.Reg. 17158 (August 31, 1971). See also 40 Fed.Reg. 23102, 23104; 58 Fed.Reg. 4166 (January 7, 1993), Decision Document, at p. 20, 74 Fed.Reg. 32744, 32748 (July 8, 2009). 121 74 Fed.Reg. 32744, 32748 (July 8, 2009). 122 74 Fed.Reg. 32744 (July 8, 2009). 123 Id . at p. 32748 ; MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1110.Waiver Request Support Document

43 the HD OBD Requirements Set Forth in Section 1971.1 that Establish New, More Stringent Requirements.
As described in Section II of this document, certain of the 2013 Amendments arguably establish new or more stringent standards which require a new waiver under section 209(a) of the CAA. 124 These amendments are listed in Attachment 1 of this waiver support document. The remainder of the 2013 Amendments either relax the regulation’s requirements, and thereby provide engine manufacturers with greater compliance flexibility, or clarify previously waived provisions of the HD OBD Requirements. Such amendments are listed in Attachment 2 and 3 to this document, respectively, and fall within the scope of the previously waived HD OBD Requirements.

1. CARB’s Protectiveness Determinations for the 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD Requirements Are Neither Arbitrary Nor Capricious In adopting Resolution 12-29, the Board expressly found that the 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD Requirements and related enforcement provisions (sections 1971.1, and 1971.5) do not undermine California’s previous determinations that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of the public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. In reviewing California’s protectiveness findings for the above-identified 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD regulations, those challenging the waiver must present clear and convincing evidence to show that the protectiveness finding by California is arbitrary and capricious. 125 This standard is in accord with “Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in setting regulations it finds protective of the public health and welfare”. 126
Moreover, in reviewing CARB’s protectiveness determination, EPA traditionally evaluates the stringency of California’s newly adopted standards to comparable applicable EPA emission standards, and that comparison has been undertaken in the broader context of the previously waived California program, which relies upon protectiveness determinations that EPA has previously determined were not arbitrary and capricious. 127 EPA’s recognition of its previous protectiveness determinations is especially pertinent here because in granting California waivers for its emission standards and related test procedures for 2007 and

124 “EPA has stated in prior waiver and authorization determinations that increases in the stringency of standards are ‘‘new issues’’ for which full waiver or authorization is required.” 77 Fed.Reg. 73459, 73460 (December 10, 2012). 125 MEMA, 627 F.2d at 1122, Decision Document accompanying OBD II Waiver Determination, at p. 14. 126 Id. 127 74 Fed. Reg. 32744, 32749 (July 8, 2009); 78 Fed. Reg. 2112, 2121-2122 (Jan. 9. 2013).Waiver Request Support Document

44 subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engines and vehicles 128 and for 2008 and subsequent model year Otto-cycle engines and vehicles, 129 EPA found that California’s heavy-duty diesel and heavy-duty Otto-cycle exhaust emission standards, in the aggregate, were not less protective than applicable federal standards, and given that the purpose of the OBD requirements is to ensure that heavy-duty engines and vehicles maintain their emissions performance throughout their useful lives. In granting California the waiver for the initial HD OBD regulation and again for the 2010 Amendments to the HD OBD regulation, the Administrator was unable to find that CARB’s protectiveness determinations were arbitrary or capricious. 130
The 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD and the HD OBD Enforcement regulation do not disturb these findings. The amendments that increase the stringency of previously waived standards establish more stringent requirements than comparable federal regulations. The amendments that relax previously waived HD OBD requirements for the 2013-2015 model years continue to be more stringent than EPA’s requirements for those model year engines, and the HD OBD requirements for 2016 and subsequent model years continue to be more stringent than comparable federal requirements. Overall, CARB’s heavy duty engine emissions control program, including the HD OBD requirements and enforcement regulations as amended in 2013, continues to be more stringent than the federal heavy-duty regulations for vehicles greater than 14,000 pounds. 2. Compelling and Extraordinary Circumstances In adopting Resolution 12-29 (Enclosure 14), the Board confirmed CARB’s longstanding position that California continues to need its own motor vehicle program to meet serious air pollution problems. The Administrator has previously and consistently recognized that California meets the compelling and extraordinary criterion when granting waivers for motor vehicles under section 209(b). The relevant inquiry under section 209(b)(1)(B) is whether California needs its own emission control program to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, not whether any given standard is necessary to meet such conditions. 131 In approving waivers under section 209(b), the Administrator has determined that:

128 70 Fed. Reg. 50322 (August 26, 2005). 129 75 Fed. Reg. 70237 (Nov. 17, 2010). 130 73 Fed.Reg. 52042 (September 8, 2008), Decision Document accompanying HD OBD Waiver Determination, at page 7; 77 Fed.Reg. 73459,73460 (December 10, 2012), Decision Document accompanying 2010 HD OBD Amendments Waiver Determination at pages 10 and 14. 131 The Administrator has recognized that even if such a standard by standard test were applied to California, it "would not be applicable to its fullest stringency due to the degree of discretion given to California in dealing with its mobile source pollution problems." 41 Fed.Reg. 44209, 44213, (October 7, 1976); 49 Fed.Reg. 18887, 18892 (May 3, 1984) (finding Congressional intent precludes EPA from viewing adopted California vehicular particulate matter standard in isolation).Waiver Request Support Document

45 “[C]ompelling and extraordinary conditions” does not refer to levels of pollution directly, but primarily to the factors that tend to produce them: geographical and climatic conditions that, when combined with large numbers and high concentrations of automobiles, create serious air pollution problems. 132
In the California Clean Air Act of 1988, the California Legislature found that: “[D]espite the significant reductions in vehicle emissions which have been achieved in recent years, continued growth in population and vehicle miles traveled throughout California have the potential not only to prevent attainment of the state standards, but in some cases, to result in worsening of air quality.” 133
The geographical and climatic conditions and the tremendous growth in vehicle population and use that moved Congress to authorize California to establish separate vehicle standards in 1967 still exist today. EPA has long confirmed the ARB’s judgment, on behalf of the State of California, on this matter. 134
Nothing in these conditions has changed to warrant a change in EPA’s confirmation, and therefore there can be no doubt of the continuing existence of compelling and extraordinary conditions justifying California’s need for its own motor vehicle emissions control program. 3. Consistency with Clean Air Act Section 202(a) EPA has historically interpreted consistency with CAA section 202(a) using a two-pronged test: (1) that there is sufficient lead time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet the standards and other requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance in the time frame provided, and (2) that the California and federal test procedures are sufficiently compatible to permit manufacturers to meet both the state and federal test requirements with one test vehicle or engine. 135 The reference to “cost of compliance” in CAA section 202(a) refers to the economic costs of emission standards and

132 49 Fed. Reg. 18887, 18890 (May 3, 1984). There the Administrator found that California need not demonstrate its particulate problem (or diesel vehicles’ contribution to it) is the worst in the country in order to adopt a particulate matter standard affecting diesel vehicles. Id. at 18891- 1892. 133 California Health and Safety Code section 43000.5. 134 California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption – Notice of Decision, 70 Fed.Reg. 50322, 50323 (August 26, 2005); 77 Fed. Reg. 73459, 73461 (December 10, 2012).

135 See 61 Fed.Reg. 53371, 53372 (October 11, 1996); Decision Document at p.2 ( OBD II Waiver Decision). Even where there is incompatibility between the California and federal test procedures, EPA has granted a waiver under circumstances where EPA accepts a demonstration of federal compliance based on California test results, thus obviating the need for two separate tests. (43 Fed.Reg. 1829, 1830 (January 12, 1978); 40 Fed.Reg. 30311, 30314 (July 18, 1975).)Waiver Request Support Document

46 accompanying enforcement procedures and the timing of a particular emission control regulation rather than to its social implications. 136 As demonstrated below, the 2013 Amendments are fully consistent with section 202(a) of the CAA. a. Technical Feasibility and Lead Time Considerations of Amendments that Establish New, More Stringent HD OBD Requirements The 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD Requirements primarily relax the requirements applicable to 2013 and subsequent model year engines in order to provide manufacturers additional time to develop and refine monitoring strategies for certain components or emission control systems. However, a limited number of the 2013 Amendments (identified in Attachment 1), arguably establish new or more stringent standards than the previously waived standards applicable to 2013 and subsequent model year HD OBD systems. These additional and more stringent requirements are consistent with section 202(a) in that manufacturers have been provided sufficient lead time, and do not require appreciable hardware changes beyond those considered by staff and the Board in the original and amended HD OBD rulemakings. Instead, the upgrades and modifications largely only require recalibration of software for existing monitors and, in the case of new monitors, the development of new diagnostic strategies. To the extent that new hardware is required, the amendments provide additional lead time for manufacturer compliance. i) diesel misfire monitoring The amendments establishing more stringent misfire monitoring requirements for diesel engines phase-in those requirements beginning in the 2016 model year, and require all 2018 and subsequent model year engines to continually detect a misfire malfunction. 137 Manufacturers should not need new hardware to comply with these new requirements, but to the extent that such new hardware is required, manufacturers have been provided adequate lead time. The amendments further accommodate manufacturers’ concerns regarding the difficulty of identifying a level of misfire that equates to the exceedance of a specific tailpipe emissions standard by allowing the detection of a fixed misfire rate of 5 percent in lieu of a detection rate based on emissions exceeding specific thresholds (e.g., 2.0 times the applicable standards), and further allow manufacturers to request Executive Officer approval to detect misfires at a higher level of misfire percentage criterion. In addition, 2013 through 2018 model year engines may limit misfire monitoring to limited conditions (positive torque conditions between 20 and 75 percent of peak torque and up to 75 percent of the maximum engine speed) with 2019 and subsequent model year engines required

136 Id. , referencing See S. Rep. No. 192, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 5-8 (1965); H.R. Rep. No. 728, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 23 (1967), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News 1967, p. 1938; see also 74 Fed.Reg. 3030 (January 16, 2009), Decision Document at p. 49

. 137 Sections 1971.1(e)(2.2) and (e)(2.3.3) and 1968.2(f)(3.2.2) and (f)(3.3.3)Waiver Request Support Document

47 to monitor for misfire across all positive torque engine speed conditions except conditions in a limited disablement area of very low torque and high engine speed conditions. Finally, the amendments allow manufacturers to disable continuous misfire monitoring under conditions that prevent the robust detection of misfires. ii) alternate fueled engines The amendments require manufacturers to fully implement HD OBD systems on alternate-fueled engines beginning with 2018 model year engines, which is two years earlier than previously required. 138 This amendment does not present any issue regarding technical feasibility, as the requirement to implement HD OBD systems on alternate fueled engines was initially established by the original HD OBD regulation, and in any event this amendment provides alternate fueled engine manufacturers 5 years of lead time. iii) secondary air flow monitor and PM filter feedgas generation The amendments that establish more stringent monitoring requirements for secondary air systems in gasoline engines, 139 and require monitoring of catalyzed PM filters for feedgas generation (e.g., NO2 to assist SCR systems), 140 likewise present no issue regarding technical feasibility. These amendments provide manufacturers three years of lead time, and should only require the recalibration of software for existing monitors instead of requiring any modifications to hardware. Moreover, the PM filter feedgas generation monitoring requirement provides additional flexibility by exempting manufacturers from this requirement if manufacturers can demonstrate that complete failure of the component or loss of the function results in both: (1) less than a 15 percent increase of the standard of any pollutant over an applicable test cycle (e.g., FTP or SET) and (2) tailpipe emissions remain below the standard. iv) NMHC threshold for NOx Sensor The amendments that require 2016 and subsequent model year HD OBD systems to monitor the NOx sensor in diesel engines for performance faults before NMHC emissions exceed 2.0 times the standards 141 are technically feasible because manufacturers have been provided 3 years of leadtime, no additional hardware should be required, the NMHC thresholds are consistent with the thresholds currently required for diesel NOx catalyst monitoring, and in virtually all cases, CARB does not expect this new requirement to alter the current calibration or sensitivity of NOx or PM sensor diagnostics.

138 Section (d)(7.5.3) 139 Section (f)(5.2.4) 140 Section (e)(8.2.4) 141 Section (e)(9.2.2.)(A).Waiver Request Support Document

48 v) freeze frame and fault code erasure criteria, incrementing monitoring numerators and denominators The amendments that effectively restrict the conditions applicable to the erasure of freeze frame conditions 142 and fault codes, 143 and that require monitors that do not require a cold start to increment their numerators and denominators even if an “engine cold start” cannot be determined 144 are technically feasible in that they apply to 2016 and subsequent model year engines, which provide manufacturers three years of leadtime, and can be implemented by modifying existing software. The amendments that restrict the criteria for incrementing the denominator for monitoring the PM filter performance monitor and PM filter missing substrate monitor 145 are technically feasible. CARB staff explained in the ISOR 146that advances in monitoring technology have resulted in newly developed PM sensors that are estimated to be available in the 2014 and 2015 model years. Such sensors are capable of evaluating the performance of the PM filter on virtually every driving cycle and have little or no connection to PM filter regeneration events. vi) PM filter monitoring – more extensive monitoring required The amendment that now limits the previously unrestricted allowance to exclude specific PM filter failure modes from the malfunction criteria of section (e)(8.2.1) to just the 2010 through 2015 model years 147 is technically feasible, because technology is presently available to permit more comprehensive and reliable detection of PM filter failure modes. 148 Specifically, at least one light-duty manufacturer is implementing a PM sensor in the 2013 model year, several heavy-duty manufacturers were, until very recently, also scheduled to implement PM sensors in 2013 engines, and manufacturers have indicated that PM sensors can be implemented in their 2014 or 2015 model year products. Furthermore, other manufacturers that have elected not to use PM sensors are using techniques such as further refining delta pressure-based approaches and concepts such as a downstream secondary filter optimized for monitoring capability. Such techniques have already achieved the emission level of the 2016 threshold on medium-duty vehicles when used in conjunction with the relaxed provisions provided in the OBD II regulation to exclude certain failure modes such as a partially melted and partially cracked filter that results in the identical delta pressure characteristics of a good filter. The HD OBD regulation contains similar provisions that allow the exclusion of specific PM filter failure

142 Sections (d)(2.2.1)(D), (e)(1.4.2)(D), and (e)(2.4.2)(B). 143 Sections (d)(2.3.1)(B) and (d)(2.3.2)(C) 144 Section (d)(4.5.3) 145 Section (d)(4.3.2)(G)/ Section 1968.2(d)(4.3.2)(G) 146 Staff Report at pages 22-23. 147 Section (g)(5.1) 148 This amendment is effective beginning with the 2014 model year.Waiver Request Support Document

49 modes in section 1971.1(g)(5.1). . Moreover, the amendments allow manufacturers to certify to less stringent thresholds during the 2014 and 2015 model years. vii) diagnostic connector and communication protocol The amendments affecting the diagnostic connector 149 do not present any issues regarding technical feasibility as SAE J1939 now includes specifications regarding the new “Type 2” connector, the new connector is “backwards compatible” with previous specified baud rates, industry has supported the new connector, and several J1939 committee members have committed to ensuring that the J1939 specification contains enough direction to tool manufacturers on how to accurately determine the appropriate baud rate Several of the amendments under this section are technically feasible by modifications to existing software. They include the amendments that remove the allowance to set the readiness status to “complete” before monitoring is actually completed; require information on diesel engines and reductant quality sensor output and corrected NOx sensor output; 150 and that require tracking and reporting of in-use monitor performance data for the NOx sensor. 151

b. Consideration of Costs CARB appropriately considered the cost of compliance of the 2013 Amendments. As stated in Section V.B of the 2013 ISOR and Appendix B to the 15-day Notice of Availability of Modified Text, CARB staff reasoned that the only elements of the 2013 Amendments that would result in increased costs would be the amendments establishing more comprehensive misfire monitoring requirements(beginning in the 2016 model year) and the amendments requiring alternatefueled engines to incorporate fully compliant HD OBD systems beginning with the 2018 model year, instead of the previously specified 2020 model year. CARB staff performed a cost analysis that is applicable to both the 2013 HD OBD and the 2013 OBD II Requirements; however, that analysis was focused on the costs attributable to the HD OBD amendments as those costs would represent the highest costs to manufacturers and consumers. 152
Staff estimated that the amendments requiring more comprehensive misfire monitoring requirements for heavy-duty diesel engines would result in an

149 Sections (h)(2) and (h)(3.2) 150 Sections (h)(4.1.1), (4.2.2), and (4.2.3.)(E), respectively. 151 Section (e)(9.3.1) and Section 1968.2(f)(5.3.1) 152 Staff reasoned that over 90 percent of all new vehicles in the heavy-duty sector consist of diesel and alternate-fueled engines, while the light-duty and medium-duty sector primarily consists of gasoline-powered vehicles. Staff’s analysis estimated the long-term “learned-out” costs of the program to a heavy-duty engine purchaser for a “typical” engine, and the analysis also estimated the incremental costs of implementing the proposed amendments. (Section V.B, 2013 ISOR).Waiver Request Support Document

50 incremental retail cost of $0.59 per vehicle, which is less than a 0.01 percent increase in the retail price of a typical heavy duty vehicle. 153 These costs are expected to be passed onto the purchasers of new engines and vehicles. Staff further estimated that the incremental retail costs associated with requiring manufacturers to incorporate fully compliant HD OBD systems in 2018 model year alternate-fueled engines range from $23 to $228 per vehicle, which represents less than a 1.0 percent increase in the retail price of the smallest vehicles and far less than a 0.1 percent increase for larger vehicles. 154 These costs are also expected to be passed onto the purchasers of new engines and vehicles. In conclusion, the 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD Requirements that arguably establish new or more stringent standards than the previously waived standards are technologically feasible, considering the cost of compliance within the lead time provided. c. Test Procedure Consistency California and federal test procedures for HD OBD systems are not incompatible. In fact, federal regulations provide that engines certified to California’s HD OBD regulation are deemed to comply with federal standards.

B. The 2013 Amendments that Relax and Clarify the HD OBD Requirements Fall Within the Scopeof the Previously Granted Waiver The 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD Requirements that relax the regulation’s requirements, and thereby provide engine manufacturers with greater compliance flexibility, or that clarify previously waived provisions of the HD OBD Requirements are listed in Attachment 2 and 3 to this document, respectively, and fall within the scope of the previously waived HD OBD Requirements.

1. Protectiveness

153 Appendix B to 15-Day Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text for 2013 Amendments (Attachment 15) 154 Ibid. Staff reasoned that because this amendment would require manufacturers to implement fully-complaint OBD systems two years earlier than previously required, the majority of costs were already accounted for in the 2009 HD OBD biennial review rulemaking, and therefore the only additional costs would be those costs associated with the amendments to the misfire monitoring requirement described above and the time value of money that is incurred due to using money two years earlier instead of earning investment returns. Specifically, this would include the earlier hiring of additional staff or purchasing of equipment needed for compliance andsome annual costs for recalibration within this earlier compliance timeframe. Also, since alternatefueled engines will have OBD systems on them two years earlier, the purchasers of such engines in these two years will experience an incremental price increase that they would not have incurred until later.Waiver Request Support Document

51 For the reasons set forth in Section VI.A.1 of this document, the amendments that relax and clarify the HD OBD Requirements that EPA previously waived in 2012 do not undermine California’s previous determination that its motor vehicle standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as the comparable federal standards. 2. Consistency with Clean Air Act Section 202(a) a. Technical Feasibility and LeadTime Considerations of Amendments that Relax and Clarify Existing HD OBD Requirements The amendments that either relax or clarify previously waived provisions of the HD OBD regulation are clearly technically feasible because they provide manufacturers additional flexibility to comply with provisions that the Administrator has already determined are not inconsistent with section 202(a). The HD OBD regulation, as initially adopted and subsequently amended in 2010, requires engine manufacturers to incorporate HD OBD systems on 2013 and subsequent model year later engines that comply with specified requirements. In her 1012 HD OBD waiver determination, the Administrator confirmed that the 2010 amendments that relaxed and clarified requirements applicable to 2010 through 2012 model year engines were within the scope of the waiver for the original HD OBD regulation, and alternatively, issued California a full waiver for the amendments affecting 2010-2012 model year engines. The Administrator issued California a full waiver for the 2010 amendments that created new, more stringent requirements for 2013 and subsequent model year engines and for the amendments that created new in-use testing procedures. To the extent that the 2013 Amendments amend previously waived provisions, those amendments have only relaxed those provisions to provide manufacturers additional compliance flexibility. For instance, for certain emission control systems on diesel engines (NOx converting catalysts, SCR reductant delivery systems, PM filter monitoring, and NOx sensors) the 2013 Amendments relax malfunction emission thresholds for 2013 through 2015 model year engines, delay the final stringent emission thresholds until the 2016 model year, and further exempt those 2014 and 2015 model year engines that were certified to interim higher emission thresholds from the 2016 emission thresholds until the 2017 model year. The 2013 Amendments also allow manufacturers to reduce the monitoring frequency of the SCR reductant delivery performance system and the NOx sensor; delay monitoring NMHC catalyst feedgas generation capability, catalyzed PM filter NMHC conversion capability, and fuel system component compensation capability until the 2015 model year, and alternatively exempt manufacturers from such monitoring if malfunctions do not cause emissions to exceed certain criteria; exempt manufacturers from monitoring EGR catalysts ifWaiver Request Support Document

52 manufacturers can demonstrate that failures in those catalysts will not result in measurable emissions impacts; and allow manufacturers to carryover deficiencies first granted in the 2010 model year up through the 2014 model year and to carryover deficiencies first granted in 2011 model year through the 2014 model year

.
“[S]taff has identified methods that are already in-use or could be used to meet each proposed monitoring requirement, determined that such methods will likely succeed in getting there, and addressed all technical issues regarding the monitoring requirements raised by industry. [¶] Further, for monitoring requirements where staff relaxed the thresholds, some manufacturers were on track to meet the previous, tighter thresholds, which demonstrates that the thresholds were technically feasible to achieve, but several manufacturers had not been as successful. Thus, in reviewing the industry status as a whole and taking into account that manufacturers were substantially expanding from OBD systems on one engine family to OBD systems on all engine families in the 2013 model year, staff felt that relief for a few specific monitors was warranted. Considering these modifications and relaxations only affected a small number of the total individual monitoring requirements, staff’s original assessment of what was technically feasible in the scheduled implementation time frame was predominantly on target .” 155
The amendments that clarify existing provisions have not added any new requirements and have not affected the lead time provided when the regulation was last amended in 2010. In granting the 2010 waiver, EPA found that the provided lead time was not inconsistent with CAA section 202(a). b. Test Procedure Consistency As stated above in Section VI.A.3.c, California and federal test procedures for HD OBD systems are not incompatible. In fact, federal regulations provide that engines certified to California’s HD OBD regulation are deemed to comply 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 regulation. The regulation continues to apply to all 2010 and subsequent model year heavy-duty engines and addresses the same pollutants covered in the initially granted and 2010 waiver.

155 2013 FSOR at pages 17-18.Waiver Request Support Document

53 For the above reasons, the Administrator should find that those 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD Requirements that establish new or more stringent standards meet the criteria for a new waiver, and that the remaining 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD Requirements fall within the scope of the 2010 waiver.

C. The 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD Enforcement Regulation Are Within the Scope of the 2012 Waiver As previously discussed, the Administrator granted California a full waiver for the initial HD OBD regulation in 2008. 156 In 2012, the Administrator granted California a waiver for the 2010 amendments to the HD OBD regulation. The Administrator confirmed that those elements of the 2010 amendments that relaxed and clarified the section 1971.1 requirements applicable to 2010 through 2012 model year engines were within the scope of the 2008 waiver, and alternatively issued California a full waiver for such amendments. The Administrator additionally issued a full waiver for those elements of the 2010amendments that applied to 2013 and later model year engines and for the HDOBD specific enforcement provisions of section 1971.5. Therefore, the 2012 HD OBD waiver encompassed the HD OBD Enforcement regulation as well as the enforcement-related provisions of section 1971.1 (including the provisions applicable to certification demonstration testing in section 1971.1(i) and production engine/vehicle evaluation testing in section 1971.1(l)). 157
For the reasons set forth above and those that follow, the Administrator should confirm that the 2013 Amendments to sections 1971.1(i), (l), and section 1971.5 fall within the scope of the previously granted HD OBD waiver. To the extent that the Administrator cannot make such a determination, the Administrator must grant California a new waiver for such amendments.

1. Protectiveness
For the reasons set forth in Section VI.A.1 of this document, the 2013 Amendments to sections 1971.1(i), (l), and section 1971.5 do not undermine California’s previous determinations that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of the public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. Those amendments primarily align the enforcement related provisions to the diesel-related amendments to the HD OBD and OBD II Requirements; specifically the selection criteria of engines/vehicles for the test sample group and the mandatory recall provisions for diesel engines. 2. Consistency with Clean Air Act Section 209

156 73 Fed.Reg. 52042 (September 8, 2008). 157 77 Fed. Reg. 73459 (December 10, 2012).Waiver Request Support Document

54 a. Technical Feasibility and Lead Time Considerations No technical feasibility issues exist for the amended HD OBD enforcement provisions independent of the technical feasibility of the underlying HD OBD monitoring requirements, 158 and the technical feasibility of the underlying HD OBD monitoring requirements has been demonstrated above in Section VI.A.3 of this document. b. Test Procedure Consistency California and federal test procedures for HD OBD systems are not incompatible. In fact, federal regulations provide that engines certified to California’s HD OBD regulation are deemed to comply with federal standards. In granting the 2012 waiver, the Administrator found that the HD OBD test procedures were not incompatible with federal test procedures, 159 and the amended enforcement provisions do not establish any new testing requirements that would affect the Administrator’s previous determination.

3. New Issues As stated, the ARB is not aware of any new issues affecting the previously granted authorization determination for the HD OBD regulation. D. Alternatively, the Administrator Must Grant a New Waiver for those 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD Requirements that CARB Has Asserted Relax and Clarify Previously Waived Requirements and those Amendments to the Enforcement Procedures of the HD OBD Regulations That Do Not Fall Within the Scope of Previously Granted Waivers Should the Administrator determine that any of the 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD Requirements and Enforcement Regulation do not fall within the scope of the 2010 waiver, CARB requests that a new waiver be granted for such amendments. No basis exists to deny such a waiver as the amendments satisfy the protectiveness and consistency criteria, and as demonstrated in section VI.A.2, California meets the compelling and extraordinary criterion.

VII. THE 2013 AMENDMENTS TO THE OBD II REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH

158 1996 Waiver Decision, 61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996). In granting the 1996 OBD II waiver, the Administrator said the primary aspect of consistency with CAA section 202(a) that is applicable to accompanying enforcement procedures is whether there is test procedure consistency. Decision document accompanying 1996 Waiver Decision at p.3, fn. 5. 159 Decision Document accompanying 2010 HD OBD Amendments Waiver Determination at page 17Waiver Request Support Document

55 IN SECTION 1968.2 AND TO THE OBD II ENFORCEMENT REGULATION IN SECTION 1968.5 EITHER MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A NEW WAIVER OR FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED WAIVER.
CARB submits that for the reasons set forth below in section VII, and in the rulemaking documents associated with the 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD and OBD II Requirements and Enforcement regulations, the Administrator must grant California the requested waiver actions as the Administrator has no basis under the criteria of CAA section 209(b) to deny California’s request:

A. A New Waiver Should Be Granted for Those 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements Set Forth in Section 1968.2 that Establish New, More Stringent Requirements.
As described in Section III of this document, certain of the 2013 Amendments arguably establish new or more stringent standards which require a new waiver under section 209(a) of the CAA. Those amendments are listed in Attachment 1 of this waiver support document. The remainder of the 2013 Amendments either relax the regulation’s requirements, and thereby provide engine manufacturers with greater compliance flexibility, or clarify previously waived provisions of the OBD II Requirements. Such amendments are listed in Attachment 2 and 3 to this document, respectively, and fall within the scope of the previously waived OBD II Requirements.

1. CARB’s Protectiveness Determinations for the 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements Are Neither Arbitrary Nor Capricious In adopting Resolution 12-29, the Board expressly found that the 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and related enforcement regulations (sections 1968.2 and 1968.5) do not undermine California’s previous determinations that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of the public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. In reviewing California’s protectiveness findings for the 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and related enforcement regulations, those challenging the waiver must present clear and convincing evidence to show that the protectiveness finding by California is arbitrary and capricious. 160 This standard is in accord with “Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in setting regulations it finds protective of the public health and welfare”. 161
In adopting the initial OBD II Requirements and subsequent amendments thereto in 1989 through 1994, CARB resolved that its standards, in the aggregate, were at least as protective of public health and welfare as the applicable federal

160 MEMA, 627 F.2d at 1122, Decision Document accompanying OBD II Waiver Determination, at p. 14. 161 Id.Waiver Request Support Document

56 standards, including federal OBD standards. In granting the 1996 waiver, the Administrator held that she could not find that CARB’s determination was arbitrary and capricious. 162
The 2013 Amendments do not disturb this finding even though EPA has since adopted amendments to its federal OBD requirements. Even considering the provisions that were relaxed for 2013 and subsequent model year medium-duty vehicles and engines, the OBD II Requirements continue to be more stringent than EPA’s adopted requirements for those model year engines. Similarly, the requirements for 2013 and subsequent model years and for all model year passenger cars and light-duty trucks continue to be more stringent than comparable federal regulations. 163
The amended OBD II requirements, considered as a whole, continue to be more stringent than the federal OBD regulationfor light-duty vehicles and trucks and heavy-duty trucks (under the federal regulation) of the same vehicle weight rating as the California medium-duty vehicle category. The Board affirmed this determination in Resolution 12-29. 2. Compelling and Extraordinary Circumstances
As set forth in Section VI.A.2 of this document, the Board confirmed CARB’s longstanding position that California continues to need its own motor vehicle program to meet serious air pollution problems in adopting Resolution 12-29, and there can be no doubt of the continuing existence of compelling and extraordinary conditions justifying California’s need for its own motor vehicle emissions control program. 3. Consistency with Clean Air Act Section 202(a) As discussed above in Section VI.A.3, EPA has historically interpreted consistency with CAA section 202(a) using a two-pronged test: (1) that there is sufficient lead time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet the standards and other requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance in the time frame provided, and (2) that the California and federal test procedures are sufficiently compatible to permit manufacturers to meet both the state and federal test requirements with one test vehicle or engine. 164 The reference to “cost of compliance” in CAA section 202(a) refers to the economic costs of emission standards and accompanying enforcement procedures and the timing of a particular emission control regulation rather than

162 OBD II Waiver Decision Document, at page 34. 163 See discussion in CARB’s 2003 and 2007 OBD II waiver request submissions. 164 See 61 Fed.Reg. 53371, 53372 (October 11, 1996); Decision Document at p.2 ( OBD II Waiver Decision). Even where there is incompatibility between the California and federal test procedures, EPA has granted a waiver under circumstances where EPA accepts a demonstration of federal compliance based on California test results, thus obviating the need for two separate tests. (43 Fed.Reg. 1829, 1830 (January 12, 1978); 40 Fed.Reg. 30311, 30314 (July 18, 1975).)Waiver Request Support Document

57 to its social implications. 165 As demonstrated below, the 2013 Amendments are fully consistent with section 202(a) of the CAA. a. Technical Feasibility and Lead Time Considerations of 2013 Amendments that Establish New, More Stringent OBD II Requirements Although the 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements primarily relax requirements applicable to 2013 and subsequent model year medium-duty vehicles and engines in order to provide manufacturers additional time to develop and refine monitoring strategies for certain components or emission control systems, a limited number of the 2013 Amendments (identified in Attachment 1) could be found to establish new or more stringent standards than the previously waived standards. Such amendments are consistent with section 202(a) in that manufacturers have been provided sufficient lead time, and do not require appreciable hardware changes beyond those considered by staff and the Board in the original and subsequent OBD II rulemakings. Instead, the upgrades and modifications largely only require recalibration of software for existing monitors and, in the case of new monitors, the development of new diagnostic strategies. To the extent that new hardware is required, the amendments provide additional lead time for manufacturer compliance. As previously discussed in Section VI of this document, the amendments that could be construed to establish new or more stringent standards for monitoring diesel misfire [sections 1968.2(f)(3.2.2) and (f)(3.3.3)], that restrict the criteria for incrementing the denominator for monitoring the PM filter performance monitor and PM filter missing substrate monitor [section 1968.2(d)(4.3.2)(G)]; and that require tracking and reporting of in-use monitor performance data for the NOx sensor [section 1968.2(f)(5.3.1)], are technically feasible. 166 The amendmentsthat specify the monitoring criteria for 2016 and subsequent model year mediumduty diesel vehicles certified to a chassis dynamometer tailpipe emission standard [sections 1968.2(f)(17.1.5) and (17.1.6)] present no issues of technical infeasibility as they essentially align those criteria with existing monitoring criteria for light-duty vehicles and with the monitoring criteria for medium-duty engines certified on engine dynamometers.

b. Consideration of Costs For the reasons set forth in Section VI.A.3.b, CARB appropriately considered the cost of compliance of the 2013 Amendments and estimated that the amendments requiring more comprehensive misfire monitoring requirements would result in an

165 Id. , referencing See S. Rep. No. 192, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 5-8 (1965); H.R. Rep. No. 728, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 23 (1967), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News 1967, p. 1938; see also 74 Fed.Reg. 3030 (January 16, 2009), Decision Document at p. 49

. 166 Sections VI.A.3.a(i), VI.A.3.a(v), and VI.A.3.a (vii), respectively.Waiver Request Support Document

58 incremental retail cost of $0.59 per vehicle. c. Test Procedure Consistency California and federal test procedures for light- and medium-duty OBD systems are not incompatible. In fact, federal regulations provide that engines certified to California’s OBD II Requirements are deemed to comply with federal standards.

B. The 2013 Amendments that Relax and Clarify the OBD II Requirements Fall Within the Scopeof the Previously Granted Waiver The 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements that relax the regulation’s requirements, and thereby provide engine manufacturers with greater compliance flexibility, or that clarify previously waived provisions of the OBD II Requirements are listed in Attachment 2 and 3 to this document, respectively, and fall within the scope of the previously waived OBD II Requirements

1. Protectiveness
For the reasons set forth in Section VII.A.1 of this document, the amendments that relax and clarify the OBD II Requirements that EPA previously waived in 1996 do not undermine California’s previous determination that its motor vehicle standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as the comparable federal standards. 2. Consistency with Clean Air Act Section 202(a) a. Technical Feasibility and Lead Time Considerations of Amendments that Relax and Clarify Existing OBD II Requirements In the short term – the 2013 through the 2015 model years – to the extent that the Board has amended requirements, the amendments only relax the requirements, providing manufacturers with greater compliance flexibility. For instance, for certain emission control systems on diesel engines (NOx converting catalysts, PM filter monitoring, and NOx sensors) the 2013 Amendments relax malfunction emission thresholds for 2013 through 2015 model year engines and delay the final stringent emission thresholds until the 2016 model year. The 2013 Amendments also allow manufacturers to reduce the monitoring frequency of the SCR reductant delivery performance system; exempt manufacturers from monitoring NMHC catalyst feedgas generation capability, catalyzed PM filter NMHC conversion capability, and fuelsystem component compensation capability if malfunctions do not cause emissions to exceed certain criteria; and exempt manufacturers from monitoring EGR catalysts if manufacturers canWaiver Request Support Document

59 demonstrate that failures in those catalysts will not result in measurable emissions impacts. “[S]taff has identified methods that are already in-use or could be used to meet each proposed monitoring requirement, determined that such methods will likely succeed in getting there, and addressed all technical issues regarding the monitoring requirements raised by industry. [¶] Further, for monitoring requirements where staff relaxed the thresholds, some manufacturers were on track to meet the previous, tighter thresholds, which demonstrates that the thresholds were technically feasible to achieve, but several manufacturers had not been as successful. ... ” 167
The amendments that clarify existing provisions have not added any new requirements and have not affected the lead time provided when the regulation was last amended. In granting the 1996 waiver, EPA found that the provided lead time was not inconsistent with CAA section 202(a). b. Test Procedure Consistency. California and federal test procedures for OBD II systems are not incompatible. In fact, federal regulations provide that engines certified to California’s OBD II Requirements are deemed to comply with federal standards.

3. No New Issues. CARB is not aware of any new issues affecting the previously granted waiver for the OBD II Requirements. The requirements continue to apply to all new 1996 and subsequent model year passenger cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty vehicles, and engines and addresses the same pollutants covered in the initially granted waiver.
For the above reasons, the Administrator should find that those 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements that establish new or more stringent standards meet the criteria for a new waiver, and that the remaining 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements fall within the scope of the 1996 waiver.

C. The 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Enforcement Regulation Are Accompanying Enforcement Provisions That Fall Within the Scope of Previously Granted Waivers Within the Scope of the 1996 Waiver

167 2013 FSOR at pages 17-18.Waiver Request Support Document

60 For the reasons set forth below, the Administrator should find that the amendments to sections 1968.2(j) and section 1968.5 fall within the scope of the previously granted OBD II waiver. To the extent that the Administrator cannot make such a determination, the Administrator must grant California a waiver for the accompanying enforcement provision. 1. The Amendments Do Not Require a New Waiver EPA has previously granted waivers for the OBD II regulation and for California’s regulations for Enforcement of New and In-Use Vehicle Standards, as set forth in title 13, CCR, section 2100 et. seq. 168 The enforcement provisions of section 1968.2 and 1968.5, as modified by the 2013 Amendments, are accompanying enforcement provisions of the OBD II regulation and should be found to be within the scope of these previously granted waivers. The 1996 waiver covered accompanying enforcement provisions, including detailed certification requirements. The reason for adopting the post-production testing amendments is to ensure that certified OBD II systems are in compliance at the time of production. The accompanying enforcement provisions of section 1968.2(j) apply to all monitoring requirements of section 1968.2 – both the provisions carried over from section 1968.1 and newly added monitoring requirements. Although codified in a different location of title 13, CCR, the enforcementprovisions of section 1968.5 are in point of fact amendments to the general inuse enforcement requirements of section 2100 et seq. The amendments were necessary to address the uniqueness of OBD II systems and the special circumstances surrounding in-use compliance testing of such systems.

2. Protectiveness
For the reasons set forth above in Section VII.A.1, the 2013 amendments to sections 1968.2(j), and section 1968.5 do not undermine California’s previous determinations that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of the public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. 3. Consistency with Clean Air Act section 202(a) a. Technical Feasibility and Lead Time Considerations No technical feasibility issues exist for the amended OBD II enforcement provisions independent of the technical feasibility of the underlying OBD II monitoring requirements, 169 and the technical feasibility of the underlying OBD II

168 See 61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996); 43 Fed.Reg. 9344 (March 7, 1978); 43 Fed.Reg. 25729 (June 14, 1978). 169 1996 Waiver Decision, 61 Fed.Reg. 53371. In granting the 1996 OBD II waiver, the Administrator said the primary aspect of consistency with CAA section 202(a) that is applicable to accompanying enforcement procedures is whether there is test procedure consistency. 61Waiver Request Support Document

61 monitoring requirements has been demonstrated above in Sections VII.A.3.a. and VII.B.2.a of this document. b. Test Procedure Consistency

In the 1996 waiver the Administrator did not find the California OBD II certification test procedures to be incompatible with the federal OBD test procedures for certification. 170 The adopted enforcement provisions do not establish any new testing requirements that would affect the Administrator’s previous determination. Accordingly, manufacturers should be able to continue to use only one test to certify an engine family to both the federal and California requirements.

4. New Issues CARB is not aware of any new issues affecting the previously granted waiver determination for the OBD II regulation.

D. Alternatively, the Administrator Must Grant a New Waiver for those 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements that CARB Has Asserted Relax and Clarify Previously Waived Requirements and those Amendments to the Enforcement Procedures of the OBD II Regulations That Do Not Fall Within the Scope of Previously Granted Waivers Should the Administrator determine that any of the 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and Enforcement Regulation do not fall within the scope of previously granted waivers, CARB requests that a new waiver be granted for such amendments. No basis exists to deny such waivers as the amendments satisfy the protectiveness and consistency criteria, and as demonstrated in section VI.A.2, California meets the compelling and extraordinary criterion.

Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996), decision document at p.3, fn. 5. 169 61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996). 169 Id. , at 53372 170 Id. , at 53372.Waiver Request Support Document

62 VIII. THE 2012 AMENDMENTS TO THE OBD II MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 1968.2 AND TO THE OBD II ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 1968.5 EITHER MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A NEW WAIVER OR FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED WAIVER. For the reasons set forth below in section VIII, and in the rulemaking documents associated with the 2012 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and Enforcement regulations, the Administrator must grant California the requested waiver actions as the Administrator has no basis under the criteria of CAA section 209(b) to deny California’s request.

The 2012 Amendments were enacted to address manufacturers’ concerns that modifications were needed immediately to allow them to certify compliant 2013 model year vehicles. The 2012 Amendments do not mandate a new system or appreciable hardware changes; instead, as explained in Section VIII.A of this document, the modifications required under section 1968.2 for light- and medium-duty vehicles and engines for the most part only require recalibration of software for some of the existing monitors.

A. A New Waiver Should Be Granted for Those 2012 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements Set Forth in Section 1968.2 that Establish New, More Stringent Requirements. As described in Section II of this document, only one of the 2012 Amendments to the OBD II regulation arguably establishes a new or additional requirement which requires a new waiver. This amendment is listed in Attachment 6 of this waiver support document. The remainder of the 2012 Amendments either relax the regulation’s requirements, and thereby provide engine manufacturers with greater compliance flexibility, or clarify previously waived provisions of the OBD II Requirements. Such amendments are listed in Attachments 5 and 7 to this document, respectively, and fall within the scope of the previously waived OBD II Requirements.

1. CARB’s Protectiveness Determinations for the 2012 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and to the OBD II Enforcement Regulation Are Neither Arbitrary Nor Capricious In adopting Resolutions 12-11 and 12-21, the Board expressly found that the 2012 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and related enforcement regulation (sections 1968.2 and 1968.5) did not undermine California’s previous determinations that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective ofWaiver Request Support Document

63 the public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. 171 In reviewing California’s protectiveness findings for the 2012 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and related enforcement regulation, those challenging the waiver must present clear and convincing evidence to show that the protectiveness finding by California is arbitrary and capricious. 172 This standard is in accord with “Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in setting regulations it finds protective of the public health and welfare”. 173
In adopting the initial OBD II Requirements and subsequent amendments thereto in 1989 through 1994, CARB resolved that its standards, in the aggregate, were at least as protective of public health and welfare as the applicable federal standards, including federal OBD standards. In granting the 1996 waiver, the Administrator held that she could not find that CARB’s determination was arbitrary and capricious. 174
The 2012 Amendments do not disturb this finding even though EPA has since adopted amendments to its federal OBD requirements. Even considering the provisions that were relaxed for 2010 and subsequent model year light- duty vehicles and 2013 and subsequent model year medium-duty vehicles, the OBD II Requirements continue to be more stringent than comparable federal regulations. 175
The 2012 amended OBD II requirements, considered as a whole, continue to be more stringent than the federal OBD regu lation for light-duty vehicles and trucks and heavy-duty trucks (under the federal regu lation) of the same vehicle weight rating as the California medium-duty vehicle category. The Board affirmed this determination in Resolutions 12-11 and 12-21. 2. Compelling and Extraordinary Circumstances In adopting Resolutions 12-11 and 12-21, the Board confirmed CARB’s longstanding position that California continues to need its own motor vehicle program to meet serious air pollution problems. The Administrator has previously and consistently recognized that California meets the compelling and extraordinary criterion when granting waivers for motor vehicles under section 209(b). The relevant inquiry under section 209(b)(1)(B) is whether California

171 “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby determines that the proposed regulations approved for adoption herein will not cause California motor vehicle emission standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of public health and welfare than applicable federal standards”; Resolution 12-11 at p. 22; “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the recitals and findings contained in Resolution 12-11, are incorporated by reference herein.” Resolution 12-21 at p.10. 172 MEMA, 627 F.2d at 1122, Decision Document accompanying OBD II Waiver Determination, at p. 14. 173 Id. 174 OBD II Waiver Decision Document, at page 34. 175 See discussion in CARB’s 2003 and 2007 OBD II waiver request submissions.Waiver Request Support Document

64 needs its own emission control program to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, not whether any given standard is necessary to meet such conditions. 176 In approving waivers under section 209(b), the Administrator has determined that: “[C]ompelling and extraordinary conditions” does not refer to levels of pollution directly, but primarily to the factors that tend to produce them: geographical and climatic conditions that, when combined with large numbers and high concentrations of automobiles, create serious air pollution problems. 177
In the California Clean Air Act of 1988, the California Legislature found that: “[D]espite the significant reductions in vehicle emissions which have been achieved in recent years, continued growth in population and vehicle miles traveled throughout California have the potential not only to prevent attainment of the state standards, but in some cases, to result in worsening of air quality.” 178
The geographical and climatic conditions and the tremendous growth in vehicle population and use that moved Congress to authorize California to establish separate vehicle standards in 1967 still exist today. EPA has long confirmed the ARB’s judgment, on behalf of the State of California, on this matter. 179
Nothing in these conditions has changed to warrant a change in EPA’s confirmation, and therefore there can be no doubt of the continuing existence of compelling and extraordinary conditions justifying California’s need for its own motor vehicle emissions control program. 3. Consistency with Clean Air Act section 202(a) a. Technical Feasibility and Lead Time Considerations

176 The Administrator has recognized that even if such a standard by standard test were applied to California, it "would not be applicable to its fullest stringency due to the degree of discretion given to California in dealing with its mobile source pollution problems." 41 Fed.Reg. 44209, 44213, (October 7, 1976); 49 Fed.Reg. 18887, 18892 (May 3, 1984) (finding Congressional intent precludes EPA from viewing adopted California vehicular particulate matter standard in isolation). 177 49 Fed. Reg. 18887, 18890 (May 3, 1984). There the Administrator found that California need not demonstrate its particulate problem (or diesel vehicles’ contribution to it) is the worst in the country in order to adopt a particulate matter standard affecting diesel vehicles. Id. at 18891- 1892. 178 California Health and Safety Code section 43000.5. 179 California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption – Notice of Decision, 70 Fed.Reg. 50322, 50323 (August 26, 2005); 77 Fed. Reg. 73459, 73461 (December 10, 2012).Waiver Request Support Document

65 Only one of the 2012 Amendments to the OBD II regulation arguably establishes a new or additional requirement. As described in above, sections (d)(5.5.1) and (d)(5.5.2)(C) now require 2014 and subsequent model year plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to report a newly required ignition cycle counter that must be incremented if the “fueled engine operation” definition has been met for at least two seconds plus or minus one second . The technical feasibility of this requirement is beyond dispute given that manufacturers were provided 2 years of leadtime and given that the amendment can be implemented by only minor software changes and is consistent with how industry has either been implementing or planning to implement this counter. 180

b. Consideration of Costs CARB appropriately considered the cost of compliance of the 2012 Amendments. Staff determined that the costs associated with amendment described above in section VIII.A.3.a would be negligible, given that: the amendment could be implemented by only software changes, manufacturers have been provided two years of leadtime to implement the software changes, and because plug-in hybrid manufacturers must necessarily modify software to comply with existing requirements, they would not incur any significant costs in modifying their software to incorporate the amendment. 181
c. Test Procedure Consistency California and federal test procedures for light- and medium-duty OBD systems are not incompatible. In fact, federal regulations provide that engines certified to California’s OBD II Requirements are deemed to comply with federal standards.

B. The 2012 Amendments that Relax and Clarify the OBD II Requirements Fall Within the Scopeof the Previously Granted Waiver The 2012 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements that relax the regulation’s requirements, and thereby provide engine manufacturers with greater compliance flexibility, or that clarify previously waived provisions of the OBD II Requirements are listed in Attachment 5 and 7 to this document, respectively, and fall within the scope of the previously waived OBD II Requirements

1. Protectiveness
For the reasons set forth in Section VIII.A.1 of this document, the amendments that relax and clarify the OBD II Requirements that EPA previously waived in 1996 do not undermine California’s previous determination that its motor vehicle

180 Staff Report at p.72. 181 Ibid.Waiver Request Support Document

66 standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as the comparable federal standards. 2. Consistency with Clean Air Act Section 202(a) a. Technical Feasibility and Lead Time Considerations of Amendments that Relax and Clarify Existing OBD II Requirements
As discussed in Section II, to the extent that the 2012 Amendments modified monitoring requirements, all but one of those amendments either relaxed those requirements to provide manufacturers greater compliance flexibility or clarified existing provisions. For instance, the 2012 Amendments delayed requirements for 2010 and subsequent model year light-duty vehicles and 2013 and subsequent model year medium-duty vehicles to monitor the ability of NMHC catalysts to generate a desired feedgas and to monitor catalyzed PM filters for proper NMHC conversion capability until the 2015 model year. The 2012 Amendments also allow manufacturers to meet a reduced in-use monitor performance ratio of 0.100 in lieu of previously specified minimum performance ratios (0.336 for most monitors) through the 2016 model year for monitors of components or systems that require engine operation on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. These amendments were not necessitated because the pre-existing OBD requirements did not provide manufacturers sufficient lead time. Rather, as stated in the Staff Report, “[m]ost of the proposed amendments would either relax or clarify the current requirements in the OBD II regulation. Thus, the technological feasibility of the proposed amendments has already been determined and discussed above and in the staff reports for the previous OBD II rulemakings. 182

b. Consideration of Costs

CARB staff determined that the costs associated with the amendments are negligible, given that such amendments either relax or clarify the current requirements. c. Test Procedure Consistency California and federal test procedures for light- and medium-duty OBD systems are not incompatible. In fact, federal regulations provide that engines certified to California’s OBD II Requirements are deemed to comply with federal standards.

3. No New Issues

182 Staff Report at p.72.Waiver Request Support Document

67 CARB is not aware of any new issues affecting the previously granted waiver for the OBD II Requirements. The requirements continue to apply to all new 1996 and subsequent model year passenger cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty vehicles, and engines and addresses the same pollutants covered in the initially granted waiver. C. The 2012 Amendments to the OBD II Enforcement Regulation Are Accompanying Enforcement Provisions That Fall Within the Scope of Previously Granted Waivers
For the reasons set forth below, the Administrator should find that the amendments to section 1968.5 fall within the scope of the previously granted OBD II waiver. To the extent that the Administrator cannot make such a determination, the Administrator must grant California a waiver for the accompanying enforcement provision.

1. The Amendments Do Not Require a New Waiver EPA has previously granted waivers for the OBD II regulation and for California’s regulations for Enforcement of New and In-Use Vehicle Standards, as set forth in title 13, CCR, section 2100 et. seq. 183 The enforcement provisions of section 1968.2 and 1968.5, as modified by the 2012 Amendments, are accompanying enforcement provisions of the OBD II regulation and should be found to be within the scope of these previously granted waivers. The 1996 waiver covered accompanying enforcement provisions, including detailed certification requirements. The reason for adopting the post-production testing amendments is to ensure that certified OBD II systems are in compliance at the time of production. The accompanying enforcement provisions of section 1968.2(j) apply to all monitoring requirements of section 1968.2 – both the provisions carried over from section 1968.1 and newly added monitoring requirements. Although codified in a different location of title 13, CCR, the enforcementprovisions of section 1968.5 are in point of fact amendments to the general inuse enforcement requirements of section 2100 et seq. The amendments were necessary to address the uniqueness of OBD II systems and the special circumstances surrounding in-use compliance testing of such systems.

2. Protectiveness
For the reasons set forth above in Section VIII.A.1, the 2012 amendments to section 1968.5 do not undermine California’s previous determinations that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of the public health and welfare as applicable federal standards.

183 See 61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996); 43 Fed.Reg. 9344 (March 7, 1978); 43 Fed.Reg. 25729 (June 14, 1978).Waiver Request Support Document

68 3. Consistency with Clean Air Act section 202(a) a. Technical Feasibility and Lead Time Considerations No technical feasibility issues exist for the amended OBD II enforcement provisions independent of the technical feasibility of the underlying OBD II monitoring requirements, 184 and the technical feasibility of the underlying OBD II monitoring requirements has been demonstrated above in Sections VIII.A.3.a. and VIII.B.2.a. of this document. b. Test Procedure Consistency

In the 1996 waiver the Administrator did not find the California OBD II certification test procedures to be incompatible with the federal OBD test procedures for certification. 185 The adopted enforcement provisions do not establish any new testing requirements that would affect the Administrator’s previous determination. Accordingly, manufacturers should be able to continue to use only one test to certify an engine family to both the federal and California requirements.

4. New Issues As stated, the ARB is not aware of any new issues affecting the previously granted authorization determination for the OBD II regulation.

D. Alternatively, the Administrator Must Grant a New Waiver for those 2012 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements that CARB Has Asserted Relax and Clarify Previously Waived Requirements and those Amendments to the Enforcement Procedures of the OBD II Regulations That Do Not Fall Within the Scope of Previously Granted Waivers Should the Administrator determine that any of the 2012 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and Enforcement Regulation do not fall within the scope of previously granted waivers, CARB requests that a new waiver be granted for such amendments. No basis exists to deny such waivers as the amendments satisfy the protectiveness and consistency criteria, and as demonstrated in section VIII.A.2, California meets the compelling and extraordinary criterion.

184 1996 Waiver Decision, 61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996). In granting the 1996 OBD II waiver, the Administrator said the primary aspect of consistency with CAA section 202(a) that is applicable to accompanying enforcement procedures is whether there is test procedure consistency. Decision document at p.3, fn. 5. 185 Id. , at 53372.Waiver Request Support Document

69 IX. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, California respectfully requests that EPA in the first instance grant a waiver for those 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD Requirements that establish new or more stringent standards, and confirm that the remaining 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD Requirements and to the HD OBD Enforcement regulation fall within the scope of the previously issued waiver granted in 2010. Should the Administrator determine that any of the 2013 Amendments to the HD OBD Requirements and Enforcement Regulation do not fall within the scope of the 2010 waiver, CARB requests that a new waiver be granted for such amendments. California is also requesting that EPA grant a waiver for those 2012 and 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement regulation that establish new or more stringent standards, and confirm that the remaining 2012 and 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement regulation fall within the scope of the previously issued OBD II waiver granted in 1996. Should the Administrator determine that any of the 2012 and 2013 Amendments do not fall within the scope of the 1996 waiver, CARB requests that a new waiver be granted for such amendments.

To assist you in reviewing the regulation, ARB is enclosing the following documents that it is incorporating into the record of this waiver proceeding. 1. 2013 Amendments to HD OBD and OBD II Requirements That Potentially Establish New or More Stringent Requirements 2. 2013 Amendments to HD OBD and OBD II Requirements That Relax Existing Requirements 3. 2013 Amendments to HD OBD and OBD II Requirements That Clarify Existing Requirements 4. 2013 Amendments to HD OBD and OBD II Enforcement Regulations 5. 2012 Amendments to OBD II Requirements and Enforcement Regulation that Relax Pre-Existing Requirements 6. 2012 Amendments to OBD II Monitoring Requirements That Potentially Establish More Stringent Requirements 7. 2012 Amendments to OBD II Monitoring Requirements That Clarify Pre-Existing RequirementsWaiver Request Support Document

70 8. Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Technical Status and ProposedRevisions to On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for HeavyDuty Engines, Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines, issued July 5, 2012. 9. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, issued July 5, 2012. 10. Appendix A to Staff Report; 11. Appendix B to Staff Report; 12. Appendix C to Staff Report; 13. Appendix D to Staff Report; 14. Resolution 12-29, dated August 23, 2012 and Attachment D to Resolution 12-29. 15. Notice of Availability of Modified Text, issued January 4, 2013
16. Executive Order R-13-005, dated June 26, 2013. 17. Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking Including Summary of Comments and Agency Response, issued June 27, 2013.

18. Addendum to Final Statement of Reasons 19. Request for Early Effective Date 20. Final Regulation Order for title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 1971.1 21. Final Regulation Order for title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 1968.2 22. Final Regulation Order for title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 1971.5 23. Final Regulation Order for title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 1968.5 24. Notice of Public Hearing to Consider the “LEV III” Amendments to the California Greenhouse Gas and Criteria Pollutant Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures and to theWaiver Request Support Document

71 On-Board Diagnostic System Requ irements for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium -Duty Vehicles, and to the Evaporative Emission Requirements for Heavy-Duty Vehicles, issued December 7, 2011. 25. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, issued December 7, 2011. 26. Appendix A to Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, issued December 7, 2011. 27. Resolution 12-11, dated January 26, 2012 and Attachment D to Resolution 12-29.
28. Resolution 12-21, dated March 22, 2012 and Attachment E to Resolution 12-21. 29. Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking Including Summary of Comments and Agency Response, issued June 25, 2012.

30. Addendum to Final Statement of Reasons 31. Request for Early Effective Date 32. Final Regulation Order.

If you require additional technical information on this item, please contact Mike Regenfuss, Chief, Engineering Studies Branch, Mobile Source Control Division, at (626) 575-7004 or by email at mregenfu@arb.ca.gov. Legal questions should be directed to Alexander Wang, Senior Staff Counsel at (916) 323-9610, or by email at awang@arb.ca.gov

.