Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 75403 

EPA—APPROVED IOWA REGULATIONS

Iowa citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission [567] 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 20—Scope of Title—Definitions—Forms—Rules of Practice 

* * * * * * * 

567–20.2 .............................. Definitions .................................... 9/21/05 12/20/05 [insert FR page 

number where the document begins] 

The definitions for anaerobic lagoon, odor, odorous substance, 

and odorous substance source 

are not SIP approved. 

* * * * * * * , 

Chapter 21—Compliance 

* * * * * * * 

567–21.2 .............................. Variances ..................................... 7/13/05 12/20/05 [insert FR page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 22—Controlling Pollution 

567–22.1 .............................. Permits Required for New or Existing Stationary Sources.7/13/05 12/20/05 [insert FR page 

number where the document begins] 

Subrules 22.1(2) and 22.1(2) ‘‘i’’

have a state effective date of 5/ 

23/01. 

* * * * * * * 

567–22.3 .............................. Issuing Permits ............................ 7/13/05 12/20/05 [insert FR page 

number where the document begins] 

Subrule 22.3(6) is not SIP approved. 

* * * * * * * 

567–22.209 .......................... Change of Ownership for Facilities with Voluntary Operating 

Permits.

7/13/05 12/20/05 [insert FR page 

number where the document begins] 

567–22.300 .......................... Operating Permit by Rule for 

Small Sources.

7/13/05 12/20/05 [insert FR page 

number where the document begins] 

Subrule 22.300(7) ‘‘c’’ has a state 

effective date of 10/14/98. 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 25—Measurement of Emissions 

567–25.1 .............................. Testing and Sampling of New and 

Existing Equipment.

7/13/05 12/20/05 [insert FR page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

PART 70—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 70 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Appendix A to Part 70—[Amended] 

■ 2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended 

by revising paragraph (h) under ‘‘Iowa’’

to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval 

Status of State and Local Operating 

Permits Programs 

* * * * * 

Iowa 

* * * * * 

(h) The Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources submitted for program 

approval rules 567–22.100, 567–

22.101(2), 567–22.102, 567–22.105(1), 

567–22.108(17)‘‘a’’(2), 567–22.209 and 

567–22.300(12) on July 18, 2005. The 

state effective date was July 13, 2005. 

These revisions to the Iowa program are 

approved effective February 21, 2006. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–24259 Filed 12–19–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 86 

[FRL–8005–4] 

RIN 2060–AJ77 

Control of Air Pollution From New 

Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle 

Engines; Modification of Federal OnBoard Diagnostic Regulations for: 

Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty 

Trucks, Medium Duty Passenger 

Vehicles, Complete Heavy Duty 

Vehicles and Engines Intended for Use 

in Heavy Duty Vehicles Weighing 

14,000 Pounds GVWR or Less 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

75404 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing certain 

requirements associated with the 

Federal on-board diagnostic (OBD) 

system regulations. On June 17, 2003, 

EPA published both a direct final rule 

and a concurrent notice of proposed 

rulemaking (68 FR 35972 and 68 FR 

35830 respectively) to amend and revise 

certain provisions of the Federal OBD 

regulations. EPA published the direct 

final rule believing that no adverse 

comments would be received. However, 

due to the receipt of an adverse 

comment, EPA published a partial 

withdrawal notice on August 14, 2003 

(68 FR 48561) withdrawing two specific 

regulatory amendments included in the 

direct final rule. The direct final rule, 

absent those two withdrawn provisions, 

became effective on August 18, 2003. 

The purpose of this action is to 

finalize the portion of the direct final 

rule that was withdrawn with the 

revisions suggested by the commenters 

and to clarify several smaller issues that 

were raised by industry during the 

comment period. 

DATES: This final rule takes effect on 

February 21, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: All comments and materials 

relevant to today’s action are contained 

in Public Docket No. OAR–2003–0080 

(old legacy docket is A–2002–20) at 

EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center (Air Docket) at the 

following address: EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC), Public Reading Room, Room 

B102, EPA West Building, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Dockets may be inspected 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except on government 

holidays. You can reach the Air Docket 

by telephone at (202) 566–1742 and by 

facsimile at (202) 566–1741. You may be 

charged a reasonable fee for 

photocopying docket materials, as 

provided in 40 CFR Part 2. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arvon Mitcham, U.S. EPA, National 

Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 

Certification and Compliance Division, 

2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor MI 48105; 

telephone (734) 214–4522, e-mail 

‘‘mitcham.arvon@epa.gov.’’

Regulated Entities: Entities potentially 

regulated by this action are those which 

manufacture new motor vehicles and 

engines. 

Category Examples of regulated entities NAICS codes a SIC codes b

Industry ............................................ New motor vehicle and engine manufacturers ......................................... 33611, 

336112, 

336120 

3711 

a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code. 

bStandard Industrial Classification (SIC) System Code. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities EPA is 

now aware could potentially be 

regulated by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in the table could also 

be regulated. To determine whether 

your product is regulated by this action, 

you should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria in § 86.005–17, 

§ 86.1806–04 and § 86.1806–05 of title 

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

If you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular product, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Table of Contents 

I. Electronic Availability 

II. Introduction and Background 

III. Requirements of the Final Rule 

A. Use of SAE J1939 Communication 

Protocol Beyond Model Year 2007 

B. Applicable Phase-Ins for OBD System 

Monitoring Requirements for Federal 

Vehicles Certifying by Demonstrating 

Compliance With California OBD II 

C. OBD System Design and Applicable 

Malfunction Thresholds for Federal 

Vehicles Certifying by Demonstrating 

Compliance With California OBD II 

IV. Other Issues Raised by Industry During 

the Comment Period 

A. Production Vehicle Testing 

B. Enforcement 

C. Referencing the Final Version of CARB?s 

OBD II Regulations in Title 13 California 

Code of Regulations § 1968.2 (13 CCR 

1968.2) 

V. Cost Effectiveness 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health & 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act 

I. Electronic Availability 

Today’s action is available 

electronically on the day of publication 

from EPA?s Federal Register Internet 

Web site listed below. Electronic copies 

of this preamble, regulatory language, 

and other documents associated with 

today’s final rule are available from the 

EPA Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality Web site listed below shortly 

after the rule is signed by the 

Administrator. This service is free of 

charge, except any cost that you already 

incur for connecting to the Internet. 

EPA Federal Register Web Site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/epa-air/. 

OTAQ’s Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/url-fr.htm. 

(Either select a desired date or use the 

Search feature.) 

II. Introduction and Background 

On February 19, 1993, pursuant to 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 202(m), 42 

U.S.C. 7521(m), EPA published a final 

rulemaking (58 FR 9468) requiring 

manufacturers of light-duty vehicles 

(LDVs) and light-duty trucks (LDTs) to 

install on-board diagnostic (OBD) 

systems on such vehicles beginning 

with the 1994 model year. The 

regulations promulgated in that final 

rulemaking require manufacturers to 

install OBD systems which monitor 

emission control components for any 

malfunction or deterioration causing 

exceedance of certain emission 

thresholds, and alert the vehicle 

operator to the need for repair. That 

rulemaking also requires that, when a 

malfunction occurs, diagnostic 

information must be stored in the 

vehicle’s computer to assist the 

technician in diagnosis and repair. 

Additionally, this original OBD 

regulation provided an allowance for 

manufacturers to satisfy federal OBD 

requirements through the 1998 model 

year by installing OBD systems 

satisfying the OBD II requirements 

promulgated by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) pertaining to 

those model years. On December 22, 

1998 (63 FR 70681), EPA revised the 

federal OBD regulations such that the 

allowance of compliance with the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 75405 

California OBD II regulations (excluding 

anti-tampering provisions) extended 

indefinitely, rather than applying only 

through the 1998 model year. In 

addition, EPA updated the allowed 

version to the most recently published 

version, at that time, CARB Mail-Out 

#97–24 (December 9, 1997). 

On June 17, 2003, EPA published both 

a direct final rule and a concurrent 

notice of proposed rulemaking (68 FR 

35972 and 68 FR 35830 respectively) to 

amend and revise certain provisions of 

the federal OBD regulations. Among 

other several minor revisions, this 

action also updated the allowed version 

of the California OBD II regulations; and 

updated the incorporation by reference 

of standardized practices developed by 

the Society of Automotive Engineers 

(SAE) and the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) 

to incorporate recently published 

versions. This action also incorporated 

by reference a new standardized 

protocol developed by the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO 

15765–4.3) and established a future 

date, model year 2008, by which this 

protocol would be the only acceptable 

protocol. 

EPA received comments from the 

Engine Manufacturers Association 

(EMA) and Cummins that the direct 

final rule did not continue to allow the 

use of the heavy-duty communication 

protocol, SAE J1939, as currently 

allowed under the Federal OBD and 

CARB OBD II requirements, beyond the 

2007 model year for vehicles that are 

not optionally certified to CARB’s 

1968.2 OBD II requirements. EMA 

commented that the direct final rule 

required that 2008 and later model year 

heavy-duty engines and vehicles under 

14,000 lbs. GVWR that are certified to 

the Federal OBD technical monitoring 

requirements must use the ISO 15765–

4.3 communication protocol. EMA and 

Cummins commented that this is not 

consistent with CARB’s requirements 

for medium duty vehicles (between 

8500 and 14,000 lbs. GVWR), nor is it 

consistent with the existing 

communication protocols developed for 

the unique operational characteristics of 

heavy-duty vehicles. As a result, EPA 

withdrew the portion of the direct final 

rule establishing the requirement that by 

model year 2008, ISO 15765–4.3 would 

be the only acceptable protocol. This 

final action addresses the comments of 

EMA and Cummins and finalizes 

revised regulations incorporating those 

comments. 

In addition, EPA received comments 

from the Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers (‘‘the Alliance’’) and the 

Association of International Automobile 

Manufacturers (AIAM) requesting 

clarification of certain aspects of the 

direct final rule. The Alliance and 

AIAM requested that their comments 

not be considered ‘‘adverse’’ unless 

their understanding of EPA’s intent was 

incorrect. The Alliance and AIAM 

specifically expressed interest that EPA 

clarify that the new OBD requirements, 

as applied to Tier 2 vehicles, would be 

phased-in on the same schedule as 

CARB’s LEV II program. As explained 

below, EPA believes it appropriate to 

clarify not only this phase-in 

requirement but also to clarify what 

malfunction thresholds apply when 

comparing LEV II and Tier 2 programs. 

The Alliance and AIAM also sought 

clarification from EPA as to whether 

production testing for OBD would be 

required and whether EPA was adopting 

CARB’s new enforcement specific 

provisions relating to OBD. Because 

EPA is further clarifying its intent and 

does not disagree with commenters’

understanding, EPA did not consider 

these comments adverse. Finally, the 

Alliance and AIAM requested that EPA 

reference the final version of CARB’s 

OBD II regulations contained in Title 13 

California Code of Regulations 1968.2 

(13 CCR 1968.2)), as modified, approved 

and filed on April 21, 2003. At the time, 

EPA referenced the latest version of the 

CARB OBD II regulations contained in 

CARB Mail-Out MSCD #02–11 (October 

7, 2002) to allow manufacturer OBD 

certification according to the optional 

compliance provisions in paragraph (j) 

of the Federal OBD Regulations. This 

final action will address those 

comments as well. 

III. Requirements of the Final Rule 

A. Use of SAE J1939 Communication 

Protocol Beyond Model Year 2007 

In the June 17, 2003 Direct Final Rule, 

EPA incorporated by reference a new, 

optional standardized communication 

protocol, ISO 15765–4.3:2001, 

December 14, 2001, ‘‘Road VehiclesDiagnostics on Controller Area Network 

(CAN)—Part 4: Requirements for 

emission-related systems’’ at 500 

kilobytes per second (kbps) baud rate, 

that can be used by manufacturers to 

design OBD systems. The standardized 

communication protocols provide a 

uniform language structure that 

facilitates compatibility between OBD II 

equipped vehicles and OBD II-related 

equipment. Manufacturers of light-duty 

vehicles and trucks are planning to 

implement this new protocol on 

vehicles, and some have done so as 

early as the 2003 MY, in addition to the 

existing communication protocols: SAE 

J1939, SAE J1850, ISO 9141, and ISO 

14230–4. 

In addition, EPA also included a 

provision that, commencing in the 2008 

model year, would have required 

manufacturers to use this new 

communication protocol, ISO 15765–4.3 

(500 kbps baud rate) for vehicles and 

engines below 14,000 lbs. The currently 

allowed communication protocols (SAE 

J1939, SAE J1850, ISO 9141, and ISO 

14230–4) would have been eliminated 

for vehicles and engines below 14,000 

lbs. Therefore, with the 2008 model 

year, the other, currently-accepted 

protocols: SAE J1939, SAE J1850, ISO 

9141–2 and ISO 14230–4, would no 

longer be accepted for all vehicles and 

engines below 14,000 lbs. and all 

manufacturers of vehicles and engines 

below 14,000 lbs. would have been 

required to implement OBD systems 

using only ISO 15765–4.3 (500 kbps 

baud rate). 

The Direct Final Rule did not 

distinguish between medium-duty 

vehicles (at or above 8500 and 14000 

pounds GVWR) and light-duty vehicles 

and trucks (below 8500 pounds). While 

no one objected to this provision as it 

applied to light-duty vehicles and 

trucks, EMA and Cummins commented 

that this provision would 

unintentionally eliminate the use of 

SAE J1939 for vehicles and engines 

between 8500 and 14000 pounds 

GVWR. EPA believes that it is 

reasonable to allow medium-duty 

engine and vehicle manufacturers 

between 8500 and 14000 pounds GVWR 

to continue to use communication 

protocol SAE J1939 beyond the 2008 

model year along with the new protocol. 

Therefore, EPA is finalizing a 

provision requiring that the only 

allowable protocols will be ISO 15765–

4.3 (500 kbps baud rate) for vehicles 

8500 pounds GVWR and below and 

either SAE J1939 or ISO 15765–4.3 (500 

kbps baud rate) for vehicles 8500 to 

14000 pounds GVWR beginning with 

the 2008 MY. Accordingly, with the 

2008 model year, the other currentlyaccepted protocols SAE J1850, ISO 

9141–2 and ISO 14230–4, would no 

longer be accepted. 

B. Applicable Phase-Ins for OBD System 

Monitoring Requirements for Federal 

Vehicles Certifying by Demonstrating 

Compliance With California OBD II 

EPA received comment from the 

Alliance and AIAM regarding the 

certification of federal Tier 2 vehicles to 

California OBD II regulations that 

reference California LEV II standards. 

CARB’s regulations phase-in additional 

OBD requirements to coincide with the 

phase-in of LEV II vehicles. Beginning 

75406 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1There is one instance where an EPA Tier 2 bin 

does not have a corresponding CARB LEV II 

emissions category, (bin 4), and two other instances 

concerning OBD where the EPA and CARB 

emission standards for individual criteria pollutants 

are not identical: The NOx standard for Tier 2 Bin 

3 and the CO standards for Tier 2 Bin 2. 

in the 2004 model year, CARB phases in 

new OBD II requirements to coincide 

with the LEV II requirements at 25, 50, 

75, and 100 percent over four model 

years. The new OBD II requirements are 

for: NOX conversion capability (Title 13 

CCR 1968.2 (e)(1.2.2)), secondary air 

monitoring (Title 13 CCR 1968.2 

(e)(5.2.3)), continuous oxygen sensor 

monitoring (Title 13 CCR 1968.2 

(e)(7.3.1)(B)(ii) and (e)(7.3.2)(B)(ii)), cold 

start emission reduction strategy 

monitoring (Title 13 CCR 1968.2 

(e)(11.1.1)), crankshaft and camshaft 

alignment for variable valve timing 

(VVT)- and timing belt/chain-equipped 

vehicles (Title 13 CCR 1968.2 

(e)(16.1.2)), and MIL illumination for 

comprehensive component 

malfunctions on SULEV II applications 

only if they cause emissions increase 

equal to or greater than 25% (Title 13 

CCR 1968.2 (e)(16.4.2)(A)). 

These provisions create some 

confusion for vehicles that are certifying 

to Federal emission requirements during 

those four years but using the option of 

meeting federal OBD requirements by 

demonstrating compliance with 

California’s OBDII regulations. Since 

EPA’s regulations do not reference 

California’s LEV II regulations, the 

provisions of California’s OBD II 

regulations that distinguish LEV II 

vehicles do not directly correspond to 

federal regulations; in particular, EPA’s 

Tier 2 regulations. 

The Alliance and AIAM commented 

that EPA’s Direct Final Rule was not 

clear on how OBD requirements that 

apply only to LEV II vehicles would be 

applied to vehicles certified to EPA’s 

Tier 2 emissions standards. The 

Alliance and AIAM further commented 

that it has been EPA’s policy in the past 

to require the same OBD requirements 

for a specific model vehicle produced 

for sale outside of California as those 

that apply in that model year for that 

model vehicle in California. The 

Alliance and AIAM asked EPA to 

confirm their position on this policy 

and to issue guidance as appropriate to 

verify EPA’s position. 

EPA’s Tier 2 standards follow a 

phase-in that is similar to the phase-in 

of LEV II controls in California. Tier 2 

standards begin for all vehicles in the 

2004 model year but have a phase-in of 

final Tier 2 vehicle emission standards 

of 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent in the 

2004, 2005 2006 and 2007 model years, 

respectively, and a corresponding 

phase-out for interim non-Tier 2 vehicle 

emission standards of 75, 50, 25, and 

0% over those four model years. This 

allows the phase-in of the new 

California OBD II requirements to be 

phased-in to the federal fleet in 

generally the same time frame as the 

California fleet, using the phase-in of 

the final Tier 2 standards as a general 

surrogate to the phase-in of LEV II 

standards, recognizing that there is 

likely to be considerable 

correspondence between vehicles 

certified to LEV II standards in 

California to vehicles certified to final 

Tier 2 standards federally. 

EPA agrees with the comments made 

by the Alliance and AIAM that we 

reiterate our intentions to maintain the 

current policy that allows OEMs to 

phase-in CARB’s new OBD II 

monitoring requirements on the same 

schedule for vehicles sold outside of 

California (for those vehicles certified 

by EPA to the ‘‘50 State’’ or ‘‘49 State’’

standards). Therefore, the phase-in of 

CARB’s LEV II OBD II requirements for 

the monitors outlined above generally 

should meet the same phase-in and be 

phased in with the Federal Tier 2 final 

emission standards at 25, 50, 75, and 

100 percent as specified in EPA’s Tier 

2 regulation over four model years and 

shall apply to vehicles sold outside of 

California. EPA recognizes that there 

may not be exact correspondence 

between the levels of LEV II vehicles 

sold in California and the levels of 

corresponding vehicles sold federally, 

and thus is not requiring exact 

correspondence to the phase-in levels 

for final Tier 2 standards, but EPA is 

expecting relatively similar levels 

during the phase-in years. 

C. OBD System Design and Applicable 

Malfunction Thresholds for Federal 

Vehicles Certifying by Demonstrating 

Compliance With California OBD II 

In reviewing the comments from the 

Alliance/AIAM discussed above, EPA 

realized that it may not be clear in some 

cases what the applicable OBD 

malfunction threshold is for Federal 

vehicles certifying to Federal OBD 

requirements by showing compliance 

with CARB OBD II regulations. 

Traditionally, OEMs certifying to EPA 

emissions standards but optionally 

complying with CARB OBD II 

requirements would use the applicable 

CARB OBD II malfunction thresholds 

(i.e., 1.75 times the applicable standard) 

as a multiplier for the applicable EPA 

emission thresholds. Although this 

optional compliance allowed 

manufacturers to certify a CARB OBD II 

system on a federal vehicle, the 

applicable EPA emission standards 

must be applied, in lieu of the California 

emission standards, when certifying a 

Federal vehicle or engine. This was 

possible in the past without further 

clarification because the relationship of 

the malfunction thresholds to the 

underlying standards under the OBD II 

regulations was not tied to the type of 

California vehicle (e.g. TLEV, LEV, 

ULEV, etc) being certified. However, 

because the revised California OBD II 

standards have different multiples based 

on the type of California LEV II vehicle 

being certified, and because LEV II 

emission bins are not identical to the 

emission bins for the federal Tier 2 

program,1 EPA needs to clarify the 

manner in which the thresholds in 

California’s OBDII requirements should 

be incorporated into the federal 

requirements. Therefore, EPA is adding 

regulatory language to clarify this issue. 

EPA is clarifying that vehicles 

certified to Federal Tier II emissions 

standards but complying with Federal 

OBD by showing compliance with 

CARB OBD II regulations are subject to 

all OBD monitoring requirements 

applicable to LEV II applications 

(subject to the phase-in discussed 

above), but shall use Tier 2 emissions 

standards for the purposes of 

determining malfunction thresholds as 

described below. CARB has similar 

provisions in their OBD II regulations 

contained in Title 13 CCR 1968.2 

(c)(20), and (e)(18.1.3) but these 

provisions only relate to vehicles and 

engines certified for use in California 

(i.e., California-only or 50-state vehicles 

and engines). 

Where the Federal standards 

correspond directly to California 

standards, this operation is simple, as 

the manufacture would simply use the 

thresholds in the OBD II regulations that 

correspond to the California LEV II 

vehicle type (e.g. ULEV, SULEV) 

matching the Federal bin to which the 

federal vehicle is certified. As noted 

above, there is one instance where an 

EPA Tier 2 bin does not have a 

corresponding CARB LEV II Program 

emissions category and the emission 

standards serving as the basis for 

calculating the malfunction thresholds 

are not identical. Tier 2 Bin 4 NMOG 

standard of 0.07 g/mi, and NOX

standard of 0.04 g/mi and CO standard 

of 2.1 g/mi, has no corresponding CARB 

LEV II Program’ emissions category. 

This Tier 2 bin falls between the CARB 

LEV II Program LEV II emissions 

category ( 0.09 g/mi NMOG, NOX

standard of 0.07 g/mi and CO standard 

of 2.1 g/mi) and the ULEV II emissions 

category (0.055 g/mi NMOG, 0.07 g/mi 

NOX, 2.1 g/mi CO). Using the NMOG 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 75407 

criteria pollutant as an example, the table below highlights this dilemma (all 

numbers in grams per mile): 

Federal Tier 2 bin number 

Tier 2 Full 

Useful Life 

NMOG 

emission 

standards 

Federal 

OBD NMOG 

threshold 

CARB 

OBD II NMOG 

threshold 

California LEV 

II Full Useful 

Life NMOG 

emission 

standards 

California 

LEV II 

emissions 

category 

5 ............................................................................................. 0 .09 0 .1575 0 .1575 0 .09 LEV II. 

4 ............................................................................................. 0 .07 0 .1225 .......................... ..........................

3 ............................................................................................. 0 .055 0 .09625 0 .09625 0 .055 ULEVII. 

Therefore, we are clarifying in this 

final rule the method and the 

appropriate malfunction threshold 

values for a vehicle or engine certified 

to Tier 2 Bin 4 but optionally complying 

with CARB OBD II which is to use the 

Tier 2 Bin 4 emission standards and the 

CARB ULEV II multiplicative factors for 

all pollutants except NOX, (e.g., 1.75 

times the standard for NMOG, CO and 

PM catalyst monitoring, 1.5 times the 

standard for all other monitors except 

comprehensive components) and the 

SULEV II multiplicative emission 

factors for NOX (e.g. for LDVs, 3.5 times 

the NOX emission standard for model 

years 2005 and 2006 and 2.5 times the 

NOX emission standard for model year 

2007 and beyond for catalyst 

monitoring; 2.5 times the emission 

standard for all other NOX monitors 

except comprehensive components) to 

determine the appropriate OBD 

malfunction threshold. 

In addition, there are two instances 

where the EPA Tier 2 and CARB LEV II 

emission standards for individual 

criteria pollutants are not identical: The 

NOX standard for Tier 2 Bin 3, which is 

0.03 g/mi, compared the 0.07 g/mi 

standard for ULEVs, and the CO 

standard for Tier 2 Bin 2, which is 2.1 

g/mile, compared to 1.0 g/mile for 

SULEVs. 

To resolve these issues, vehicles 

certified to Tier 2, Bin 3 emissions 

standards shall utilize the Tier 2 Bin 3 

NOX emission standards and the CARB 

SULEV II multiplicative factors to 

determine the appropriate OBD 

malfunction threshold. Vehicles 

certified to Tier 2, Bin 2 emissions 

standards shall utilize the Tier 2 Bin 2 

CO emission standards and the CARB 

SULEV II multiplicative factors to 

determine the appropriate OBD 

malfunction threshold. For vehicles 

certified to federal bin 7 and higher, 

manufacturers must use the multipliers 

for Cal LEV II vehicles and the federal 

standards to determine their thresholds. 

IV. Other Issues Raised by Industry 

During the Comment Period 

A. Production Vehicle Testing 

The Alliance and AIAM commented 

that the CARB OBDII regulations require 

manufacturers to conduct production 

vehicle testing. The Alliance and AIAM 

requested that EPA clarify that 

production vehicle testing would not be 

required on federal vehicles certified to 

the CARB OBDII regulations. As an 

alternative, vehicle manufacturers said 

they would provide EPA copies of the 

final production vehicle evaluation 

reports that are provided to CARB as 

part of their certification process. 

EPA agrees with the Alliance and 

AIAM comments that federal OBD 

regulations do not explicitly require 

manufacturers to conduct production 

vehicle testing. However, manufacturers 

who intend to meet the Federal OBD 

requirements by meeting the CARB 

OBDII requirements may be required to 

submit the same information that is 

submitted to CARB in order for EPA to 

make its own determinations of 

compliance. As a result, although EPA 

will not require the manufacturers to 

conduct production vehicle testing, the 

EPA may use the reports from the 

production vehicle testing program to 

assess in-use compliance. This is 

consistent with EPA policy to use all 

available information from the field to 

assess in-use compliance, of which the 

manufacturers are aware. 

B. Enforcement 

The Alliance and AIAM requested 

that EPA clarify that the new 

enforcement provisions finalized in the 

CARB OBDII regulations (section 

1968.5) are not being adopted by EPA 

and that EPA will continue to conduct 

independent evaluations before 

determining enforcement actions. 

EPA agrees with the Alliance and 

AIAM that our Direct Final Rule did not 

adopt the enforcement provisions 

enacted by CARB. EPA has no current 

intent to adopt such provisions. We will 

continue to conduct our own 

independent assessments and 

evaluations of manufacturer compliance 

before pursuing enforcement actions. 

However, EPA will continue to use all 

available information, including, but not 

limited to, any information collected by 

CARB in making our compliance and 

enforcement determinations. 

C. Referencing the Final Version of 

CARB’s OBD II Regulations in Title 13 

California Code of Regulations 1968.2 

(13 CCR 1968.2) 

The Alliance and AIAM requested 

that EPA reference the final version of 

CARB’s OBD II regulations contained in 

Title 13 California Code of Regulations 

1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2) under paragraph 

(j) of the Federal OBD regulations 

allowing optional compliance with 

CARB OBD II requirements. The final 

version of CARB’s OBD II Regulations 

Title 13 California Code of Regulations 

1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2) was approved 

by the California Office of 

Administrative Law (OAL) and filed 

with the California Secretary of State on 

April 23, 2003. 

The EPA agrees with this 

recommendation and will reference 

CARB?s OBD II Regulations Title 13 

California Code of Regulations 1968.2 

(13 CCR 1968.2) (April 23, 2003) in 

paragraph (j) of the Federal OBD 

regulations in this regulatory action. 

V. Cost Effectiveness 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

clarify existing provisions of EPA’s OBD 

regulations. As a result, there are no cost 

effectiveness issues for this action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency is 

required to determine whether this 

regulatory action would be ‘‘significant’’

and therefore subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and the requirements of the 

Executive Order. The order defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as any 

regulatory action that is likely to result 

in a rule that may: 

75408 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

state, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or, 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, we have determined that 

this rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Today’s action does not impose any 

new information collection burden. The 

modifications noted above do not 

change the information collection 

requirements submitted to and 

approved by OMB in association with 

the OBD final rulemakings (58 FR 9468, 

February 19, 1993; and 59 FR 38372, 

July 28, 1994 under the provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. However, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations (64 FR 23906) under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0104, EPA ICR number 0783.47. A 

copy of the OMB approved Information 

Collection Requests (ICR) may be 

obtained from Susan Auby, Collection 

Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566–1672. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis of any proposed rule 

subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s final rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) Those 

businesses meeting the definition 

provided by the Small Business 

Administration (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s rule on small entities, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Today’s action provides clarification 

and correct reference information and 

does not add new regulatory burden on 

small entities. Periodically EPA must 

update its regulations to incorporate by 

reference any new applicable 

communication protocols (including 

those set forth by the SAE and the ISO) 

to be used by the OBD system. EPA had 

unnecessarily deleted the allowance of 

a certain SAE protocol for 2007 and 

later model year heavy-duty vehicles in 

a previous rulemaking and by today’s 

final rule that protocol is placed back 

into the regulation. 

Second, the phase-in of the new OBD 

II regulations in California is tied to a 

phase in of their new emission 

standards called LEV II (the second 

round of low-emission vehicle 

standards) that commence in the 2004 

model year. EPA’s Tier 2 emission 

standards (that also commences in 2004) 

are phased in with a similar schedule as 

LEV II and therefore, based on 

manufacturers’ request, we are 

clarifying that those manufacturers that 

choose to optionally certify their federal 

vehicles to CARB’s OBD II regulations 

may do so based on the same phase-in 

of OBD II as allowed within California. 

However, because in a very few 

instances the emission standard levels 

of LEV II and Tier 2 do not completely 

match, we are also clarifying within the 

regulations what emission malfunction 

thresholds and emission levels apply to 

federal vehicles certified as meeting the 

OBD II regulations. 

We are also adding reference to the 

final CARB ‘‘Mail-out’’ number for 

CARB’s OBD II regulation as finalized. 

In addition, we have added clarification 

of whether EPA was adopting some of 

CARB’s ancillary OBD II regulations 

such as the testing requirements on 

production vehicles and CARB’s unique 

in-use testing and enforcement 

requirements. By today’s action we are 

clarifying that EPA did not adopt such 

requirements by the direct final rule and 

is not otherwise doing so. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on state, local, 

and tribal governments, and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

we generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to state, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more for any single year. Before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement is needed, section 205 of the 

UMRA generally requires us to identify 

and consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows us to adopt an alternative that is 

not the least costly, most cost-effective, 

or least burdensome alternative if we 

provide an explanation in the final rule 

of why such an alternative was adopted. 

Before we establish any regulatory 

requirement that may significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, 

including tribal governments, we must 

develop a small government plan 

pursuant to section 203 of the UMRA. 

Such a plan must provide for notifying 

potentially affected small governments, 

and enabling officials of affected small 

governments to have meaningful and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 75409 

timely input in the development of our 

regulatory proposals with significant 

federal intergovernmental mandates. 

The plan must also provide for 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

This rule contains no federal 

mandates for state, local, or tribal 

governments as defined by the 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The 

rule imposes no enforceable duties on 

any of these governmental entities. Nor 

does this rule have any Federal 

mandates that may result in the 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

any year by the private sector as also 

defined by the provisions of Title II of 

the UMRA. Nothing in the rule will 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires us to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by state 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government’’. 

Under section 6 of Executive Order 

13132, we may not issue a regulation 

that has federalism implications, that 

imposes substantial direct compliance 

costs, and that is not required by statute, 

unless the Federal government provides 

the funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by state and 

local governments, or we consult with 

state and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. We also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts state 

law, unless the Agency consults with 

state and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

Section 4 of the Executive Order 

contains additional requirements for 

rules that preempt state or local law, 

even if those rules do not have 

federalism implications (i.e., the rules 

will not have substantial direct effects 

on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government). Those 

requirements include providing all 

affected state and local officials notice 

and an opportunity for appropriate 

participation in the development of the 

regulation. If the preemption is not 

based on express or implied statutory 

authority, we also must consult, to the 

extent practicable, with appropriate 

state and local officials regarding the 

conflict between state law and federally 

protected interests within the agency’s 

area of regulatory responsibility. 

This rule does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This rule 

updates provisions of an earlier rule that 

adopted national standards relating to 

OBD systems and the ability of 

manufacturers to demonstrate Federal 

compliance based on demonstration of 

compliance with California OBD II 

regulations. The requirements of the 

rule will be enforced by the Federal 

government at the national level. Thus, 

the requirements of section 6 of the 

Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. Today’s rule 

would not uniquely affect the 

communities of American Indian tribal 

governments since the motor vehicle 

fuel and other related requirements for 

private businesses in today’s rule have 

national applicability. Furthermore, 

today’s rule does not impose any direct 

compliance costs on these communities 

and no circumstances specific to such 

communities exist that will cause an 

impact on these communities beyond 

those discussed in the other sections of 

today’s document. 

This rule does not significantly or 

uniquely affect the communities of 

Indian tribal governments. As noted 

above, this rule will be implemented at 

the Federal level and imposes 

compliance obligations and options on 

private industry. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health & 

Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that 

1) is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and 2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

we have reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

section 5–501 of the Executive Order 

directs us to evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by us. 

EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying 

only to those regulatory actions that are 

based on health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5–

501 of the Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This final rule 

is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it 

is based on technology performance and 

not on health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), section 12(d) of 

Public Law 104–113, directs us to use 

voluntary consensus standards in our 

regulatory activities unless it would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

us to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when we decide not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This final rule references technical 

standards adopted by us through 

previous rulemakings. Specifically, this 

rule references technical standards 

developed by the Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) and the International 

75410 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Standards Organization (ISO) related to 

the design and function of On-Board 

Diagnostic (OBD) systems on motor 

vehicles and engines below 14,000 

pounds gross vehice weight rating, for 

which today’s action applies. No new 

technical standards are established in 

today’s rule. 

Statutory and Legal Authority 

Statutory authority for today’s final 

rule comes from the Clean Air Act, 42 

U.S.C. 7401 et seq., in particular, section 

202(m) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(m)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86 

Environmental Protection, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Motor vehicle pollution, On-board 

diagnostics. 

Dated: November 29, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, part 86 of title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY 

VEHICLES AND ENGINES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 86 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

■ 2. Section 86.005–17 is amended by 

adding paragraph (h)(3) and revising 

paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

* * * * * 

§ 86.005–17 On-board diagnostics. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(3) Beginning with the 2008 model 

year and beyond, ISO 15765–4.3:2001 

‘‘Road Vehicles-Diagnostics on 

Controller Area Network (CAN)—Part 4: 

Requirements for emission-related 

systems’’, (December 14, 2001) shall be 

the only acceptable protocol used for 

standardized on-board to off-board 

communications for vehicles below 

8500 pounds. For vehicles 8500 to 

14000 pounds ISO 15765–4.3 or the 

SAE J1939 series of standards (SAE 

J1939–11, J1939–13, J1939–21, J1939–

31, J1939–71, J1939–73, J1939–81). All 

other standardized on-board to off-board 

communications protocols: SAE J1850 

‘‘Class B Data Communication Network 

Interface,’’ (Revised, May 2001) in 

(h)(1)(i), ISO 9141–2 ‘‘Road vehicles—

Diagnostic systems—Part 2: CARB 

requirements for interchange of digital 

information,’’ (February 1, 1994) in 

(h)(2)(i), and ISO 14230–4 ‘‘Road 

vehicles—Diagnostic systems—KWP 

2000 requirements for Emission-related 

systems’’, (June 1, 2000) in paragraph 

(h)(2)(ii) of this section will at that time 

no longer be accepted. 

* * * * * 

(j) California OBDII compliance 

option. For heavy-duty engines 

weighing 14,000 pounds GVWR or less, 

demonstration of compliance with 

California OBD II requirements (Title 13 

California Code of Regulations § 1968.2 

(13 CCR 1968.2)), as modified, approved 

and filed on April 21, 2003, shall satisfy 

the requirements of this section, except 

that compliance with 13 CCR 

1968.2(e)(4.2.2)(C), pertaining to 0.02 

inch evaporative leak detection, and 13 

CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to 

tampering protection, are not required 

to satisfy the requirements of this 

section. Also, the deficiency provisions 

of 13 CCR 1968.2(i) do not apply. The 

deficiency provisions of paragraph (i) of 

this section and the evaporative leak 

detection requirement of paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section apply to 

manufacturers selecting this paragraph 

for demonstrating compliance. In 

addition, demonstration of compliance 

with 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(16.2.1)(C), to the 

extent it applies to the verification of 

proper alignment between the camshaft 

and crankshaft, applies only to vehicles 

equipped with variable valve timing. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 86.1806–04 is amended by 

revising paragraph (j) and adding 

paragraph (l) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1806–04 On-board diagnostics. 

* * * * * 

(j) California OBDII compliance 

option. For heavy-duty engines 

weighing 14,000 pounds GVWR or less, 

demonstration of compliance with 

California OBD II requirements (Title 13 

California Code of Regulations § 1968.2 

(13 CCR 1968.2)), as modified, approved 

and filed on April 21, 2003, shall satisfy 

the requirements of this section, except 

that compliance with 13 CCR 

1968.2(e)(4.2.2)(C), pertaining to 0.02 

inch evaporative leak detection, and 13 

CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to 

tampering protection, are not required 

to satisfy the requirements of this 

section. Also, the deficiency provisions 

of 13 CCR 1968.2(i) do not apply. The 

deficiency provisions of paragraph (i) of 

this section and the evaporative leak 

detection requirement of paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section apply to 

manufacturers selecting this paragraph 

for demonstrating compliance. In 

addition, demonstration of compliance 

with 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(16.2.1)(C), to the 

extent it applies to the verification of 

proper alignment between the camshaft 

and crankshaft, applies only to vehicles 

equipped with variable valve timing. 

* * * * * 

(l) Thresholds for California OBD II 

Compliance Option. For the purposes of 

complying with the provisions set forth 

above in paragraph (j), vehicles certified 

to Tier 2 standards shall utilize 

multiplicative factors from the 

California vehicle type (i.e. LEV II, 

ULEV II) corresponding to the Tier 2 to 

which the vehicles are certified. 

Vehicles certified to Tier 2, Bin 4 

emissions standards shall utilize the 

Tier 2 Bin 4 emission standards and the 

CARB ULEV II multiplicative factors to 

determine the appropriate OBD 

malfunction threshold for all pollutants 

except NOX, for which they shall utilize 

that CARB SULEV II multiplicative 

factors. Vehicles certified to Tier 2, Bin 

3 emissions standards shall utilize the 

Tier 2 Bin 3 emission standards and the 

CARB ULEV II multiplicative factors to 

determine the appropriate OBD 

malfunction threshold for all pollutants 

except NOX, for which they shall utilize 

that CARB SULEV II multiplicative 

factors. Vehicles certified to Tier 2, Bin 

2 emissions standards shall utilize the 

Tier 2 Bin 2 emission standards and the 

CARB SULEV II multiplicative factors to 

determine the appropriate OBD 

malfunction threshold. Vehicles 

certified to Tier 2 Bin 7 or higher shall 

utilize the CARB LEV II multiplicative 

factors to determine the appropriate 

OBD malfunction threshold. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 86.1806–05 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (h)(3) and (m) and 

revising paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1806–05 On-board diagnostics. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(3) Beginning with the 2008 model 

year and beyond, ISO 15765–4.3: 2001 

‘‘Road Vehicles-Diagnostics on 

Controller Area Network (CAN)—Part 4: 

Requirements for emission-related 

systems’’, (December 14, 2001) shall be 

the only acceptable protocol used for 

standardized on-board to off-board 

communications for vehicles below 

8500 pounds. For vehicles 8500 to 

14000 pounds ISO 15765–4.3 or the 

SAE J1939 series of standards (SAE 

J1939–11, J1939–13, J1939–21, J1939–

31, J1939–71, J1939–73, J1939–81). All 

other standardized on-board to off-board 

communications protocols: SAE J1850 

‘‘Class B Data Communication Network 

Interface,’’ (Revised, May 2001) in 

paragraph (h)(1)(i), ISO 9141–2 ‘‘Road 

vehicles—Diagnostic systems—Part 2: 

CARB requirements for interchange of 

digital information,’’ (February 1, 1994) 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 75411 

in (h)(2)(i), and ISO 14230–4 ‘‘Road 

vehicles—Diagnostic systems—KWP 

2000 requirements for Emission-related 

systems’’, (June 1, 2000) in paragraph 

(h)(2)(ii) of this section will at that time 

no longer be accepted 

* * * * * 

(j) California OBDII compliance 

option. For heavy-duty engines 

weighing 14,000 pounds GVWR or less, 

demonstration of compliance with 

California OBD II requirements (Title 13 

California Code of Regulations 1968.2 

(13 CCR 1968.2)), as modified, approved 

and filed on April 21, 2003, shall satisfy 

the requirements of this section, except 

that compliance with 13 CCR 

1968.2(e)(4.2.2)(C), pertaining to 0.02 

inch evaporative leak detection, and 13 

CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to 

tampering protection, are not required 

to satisfy the requirements of this 

section. Also, the deficiency provisions 

of 13 CCR 1968.2(i) do not apply. The 

deficiency provisions of paragraph (i) of 

this section and the evaporative leak 

detection requirement of paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section apply to 

manufacturers selecting this paragraph 

for demonstrating compliance. In 

addition, demonstration of compliance 

with 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(16.2.1)(C), to the 

extent it applies to the verification of 

proper alignment between the camshaft 

and crankshaft, applies only to vehicles 

equipped with variable valve timing. 

* * * * * 

(m) Thresholds for California OBD II 

Compliance Option. For the purposes of 

complying with the provisions set forth 

above in paragraph (j), vehicles certified 

to Tier 2 standards shall utilize 

multiplicative factors from the 

California vehicle type (i.e. LEV II, 

ULEV II) corresponding to the Tier 2 to 

which the vehicles are certified. 

Vehicles certified to Tier 2, Bin 4 

emissions standards shall utilize the 

Tier 2 Bin 4 emission standards and the 

CARB ULEV II multiplicative factors to 

determine the appropriate OBD 

malfunction threshold for all pollutants 

except NOX, for which they shall utilize 

that CARB SULEV II multiplicative 

factors. Vehicles certified to Tier 2, Bin 

3 emissions standards shall utilize the 

Tier 2 Bin 3 emission standards and the 

CARB ULEV II multiplicative factors to 

determine the appropriate OBD 

malfunction threshold for all pollutants 

except NOX, for which they shall utilize 

that CARB SULEV II multiplicative 

factors. Vehicles certified to Tier 2, Bin 

2 emissions standards shall utilize the 

Tier 2 Bin 2 emission standards and the 

CARB SULEV II multiplicative factors to 

determine the appropriate OBD 

malfunction threshold. Vehicles 

certified to Tier 2 Bin 7 or higher shall 

utilize the CARB LEV II multiplicative 

factors to determine the appropriate 

OBD malfunction threshold. 

[FR Doc. 05–23669 Filed 12–19–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

48 CFR Chapter 2 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Technical 

Amendment 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is revising the name of 

48 CFR Chapter 2 from ‘‘Department of 

Defense’’ to ‘‘Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense.’’ This change will facilitate the 

Government’s implementation of the 

Federal Document Management System, 

as it will permit the DoD regulations 

issued under 48 CFR Chapter 2 to be 

indexed separately from other DoD 

regulations. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 30, 

2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Michele Peterson, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, 

OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 

3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0311; 

facsimile (703) 602–0350. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Chapter 2 

Government procurement. 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

■ Therefore, under the authority of 41 

U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1, 48 

CFR Chapter 2 is amended by revising 

the name of the chapter to read 

‘‘Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System, Department of Defense’. 

[FR Doc. 05–24220 Filed 12–19–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

48 CFR Parts 201 and 213 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Technical 

Amendments 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is making technical 

amendments to the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement to 

add references to DoD guidance on 

contracting officers’ representatives and 

DoD purchase, travel, and fuel card 

programs. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 20, 

2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Robin Schulze, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, 

OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 

3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0326; 

facsimile (703) 602–0350. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 201 and 

213 

Government procurement. 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

■ Therefore, 48 CFR parts 201 and 213 

are amended as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 201 and 213 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR 

Chapter 1. 

PART 201—FEDERAL ACQUISITION 

REGULATIONS SYSTEM 

■ 2. Section 201.602–2 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

201.602–2 Responsibilities. 

Contracting officers may designate 

qualified personnel as their authorized 

representatives to assist in the technical 

monitoring or administration of a 

contract. Follow the procedures at PGI 

201.602–2. A contracting officer’s 

representative (COR)—

* * * * * 

PART 213—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION 

PROCEDURES 

■ 3. Section 213.301 is amended by 

adding paragraph (4) to read as follows: 

213.301 Governmentwide commercial 

purchase card. 

* * * * * 

(4) Guidance on DoD purchase, travel, 

and fuel card programs is available at 

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pcard/ 

pcardguidebook.htm. Additional 

guidance on the fuel card program is 

available at http://www.desc.dla.mil. 

[FR Doc. 05–24221 Filed 12–19–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P