15242 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1994, December 19, 1994, and October

19, 1994, respectively. These rules were

submitted in response to EPA’s 1988

SIP-Call and the CAA section

182(a)(2)(A) requirement that

nonattainment areas fix their reasonably

available control technology (RACT)

rules for ozone in accordance with EPA

guidance that interpreted the

requirements of the pre-amendment Act.

A detailed discussion of the background

for each of the above rules and

nonattainment areas is provided in the

NPRM cited above.

EPA has evaluated all of the above

rules for consistency with the

requirements of the CAA and EPA

regulations and EPA interpretation of

these requirements as expressed in the

various EPA policy guidance documents

referenced in the NPRM cited above.

EPA has found that the rules meet the

applicable EPA requirements. A

detailed discussion of the rule

provisions and evaluations has been

provided in 60 FR 2563 and in technical

support documents (TSDs) available at

EPA’s Region IX office (TSDs dated

December 27, 1994, PCAPCD Rule 223;

December 27, 1994, PCAPCD Rule 410;

and December 27, 1994, SDCAPCD Rule

67.4).

Response to Public Comments

A 30-day public comment period was

provided in 60 FR 2563. EPA received

one comment letter from NAPP

Systems, Inc. supporting EPA’s

proposed approval of SDCAPCD Rule

67.4.

EPA Action

EPA is finalizing action to approve

the above rules for inclusion into the

California SIP. EPA is approving the

submittal under section 110(k)(3) as

meeting the requirements of section

110(a) and Part D of the CAA. This

approval action will incorporate these

rules into the federally approved SIP.

The intended effect of approving these

rules is to regulate emissions of VOCs in

accordance with the requirements of the

CAA.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Process

The OMB has exempted this action

from review under Executive Order

12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: March 8, 1995.

John Wise,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding and reserving paragraphs

(c)(201), (c)(202) introductory text,

(c)(202)(i) introductory text, (c)(202)(i)

(A) and (B), (c)(203), (c)(204), (c)(205)

and (c)(206) and by adding paragraphs

(c)(202)(i)(C), (c)(207) and (c)(208) to

read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(201) [Reserved].

(202)(i)(A) [Reserved]

(B) [Reserved]

(C) San Diego County Air Pollution

Control District (1) Rule 67.4, adopted

on September 27, 1994.

(203)–(206) [Reserved]

(207) New and amended regulations

for the following APCDs were submitted

on November 30, 1994, by the

Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Placer County Air Pollution

Control District.

(1) Rule 223, adopted on October 6,

1994.

(208) New and amended regulations

for the following APCDs were submitted

on December 19, 1994, by the

Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Placer County Air Pollution

Control District.

(1) Rule 410, adopted on November 3,

1994.

[FR Doc. 95–7008 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 86

[AMS–FRL–5170–6]

RIN 2060–AC65

Control of Air Pollution From New

Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle

Engines: Regulations Requiring OnBoard Diagnostic (OBD) Systems—

Acceptance of Revised California OBD

II Requirements; OBD Relief for

Alternative Fueled Vehicles; and

Revisions for Consistency Between

Federal OBD and California OBD II

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This direct final rulemaking

revises requirements associated with onboard diagnostic (OBD) systems. The

federal OBD rulemaking, published

February 19, 1993, allowed for

compliance with California OBD II

requirements as satisfying federal OBD

requirements through the 1998 model

year, an allowance of which most

original equipment automobile

manufacturers intend to take advantage.

The California Air Resources Board has

recently revised their OBD II

requirements. The federal OBD

regulations require appropriate

revisions such that compliance with the

recently revised OBD II requirements

will satisfy federal OBD. Additionally,

aspects of the federal OBD requirements

will be revised and updated, in some

cases to maintain consistency with the

OBD II provisions, including providing

OBD relief for alternative fueled

vehicles, and in some cases to clarify

federal OBD provisions. Finally,

consistent with an order from the Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia,

the federal regulations are being revised

to delete a requirement that

manufacturers include certain features

to deter tampering on affected vehicles.

DATES: This final action will become

effective on May 22, 1995 unless notice

is received by April 24, 1995 that any

person wishes to submit adverse

comments. Should EPA receive such

notice, EPA will publish subsequent

action in the Federal Register

withdrawing all or part of this final

action.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted (in duplicate if possible)

to: The Air Docket, room M–1500 (Mail
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15243

1 58 FR 9468, February 19, 1993. 2 59 FR 48472, September 21, 1994. 3 59 FR 51114.

Code 6102), Waterside Mall, Attention:

Docket No. A–90–35, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Materials

relevant to this rulemaking are

contained in Docket No. A–90–35, and

may be viewed from 8:30 a.m. until

noon and from 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m.

Monday through Friday. A reasonable

fee may be charged by EPA for copying

docket material. Those wishing to notify

EPA of their intent to submit adverse

comments on this action should contact

Todd Sherwood, Certification Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

2565 Plymouth Rd., Ann Arbor,

Michigan 48105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Sherwood, (313) 668–4405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction and Background

On February 19, 1993, the EPA

promulgated a final rulemaking 1

requiring manufacturers of light-duty

vehicles (LDV) and light-duty trucks

(LDT) to install on-board emission

control diagnostics (OBD) systems on

such vehicles beginning in model year

1994. The regulations promulgated in

that final rulemaking require that

manufacturers install OBD systems

which monitor emission control

components for any malfunction or

deterioration causing exceedances 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

mechanic in diagnosis and repair.

Additionally, that rulemaking makes

an allowance for manufacturers to

satisfy the Federal OBD requirements

through the 1998 model year by

installing systems satisfying the

California OBD II requirements

pertaining to those model years. This

allowance means that manufacturers

could concentrate on designing one

system to meet the California OBD II

requirements and installing that system

nationwide during allowable model

years. As EPA regulations cannot be

revised except through EPA rulemaking,

the OBD II requirements allowed under

this provision were, and have continued

to be, those existing on the date of

publication of the federal OBD final

rulemaking. This means that subsequent

changes made to the OBD II

requirements by the California Air

Resources Board (ARB) may be

inconsistent and potentially

unacceptable for federal OBD

compliance. The provisions of this

direct final rulemaking will allow

manufacturers to comply with federal

OBD requirements by optionally

complying with more recent OBD II

regulations, specifically those contained

in ARB Mail Out #95–03, made publicly

available January 19, 1995.

Also included in the February 1993

federal OBD final rulemaking was a

requirement that all LDVs and LDTs for

which emission standards were in place

comply with the OBD requirements. A

separate Agency rulemaking 2

subsequently promulgated emission

standards for gaseous alternative fuels,

and specified that these vehicles comply

with federal OBD requirements

beginning in the 1997 and 1998 model

years for liquified petroleum gas and

natural gas, respectively. The provisions

of this direct final rulemaking will

provide some regulatory relief through

the 1998 model year for alternative

fueled vehicles by requiring

implementation of diagnostic strategies

only to the extent feasible, or where the

unique effects of alternative fuels on

those diagnostic strategies are not of

concern.

In § 86.094–18 of the February 1993

rulemaking was a requirement that

vehicle manufacturers install on

affected vehicles features to deter

modification except as authorized by

the manufacturer. Several associations

representing aftermarket parts

manufacturers, rebuilders, distributors,

retailers and service and repair

providers (‘‘petitioners’’) petitioned for

review of this provision of the United

States Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia Circuit (Docket No. 93–

1277). On May 9, 1994, the Agency and

the petitioners filed with the Court a

Joint Motion to Remand the

Administrative Record to the Agency

‘‘in order for EPA to reconsider the antitampering provisions, to address any

tensions between these provisions and

the access and information availability

requirements [of sections 202(m)(4) and

202(m)(5) of the Act], and, if necessary,

to promulgate new regulations

addressing EPA’s concerns about

tampering.’’ The parties further

requested the Court to order that the

anti-tampering provisions (and the

incorporation of California’s antitampering regulations) be vacated. On

May 19, 1994, the Court ordered that the

joint motion be granted and that the

anti-tampering regulation be vacated.

The Court also ordered that 40 CFR

86.094–17(j) be vacated to the extent it

requires compliance with California’s

anti-tampering regulations for those

vehicles optionally certified to the

California OBD II requirements. On

October 7, 1994, EPA published a

notice 3 informing the public of the

decision of the court and announcing its

intention to issue a final rulemaking

officially withdrawing these provisions.

Today’s action withdraws these

provisions.

II. Requirements of This Direct Final

Rulemaking

A. Acceptance of Revised California

OBD II

This direct final rulemaking allows

manufacturers to comply with federal

OBD requirements by optionally

complying with the revised and recently

adopted California OBD II regulations.

This allowance is not new. The

allowance for optional compliance with

California OBD II was made in the

federal OBD final rulemaking in

February, 1993. However, since that

time, the ARB has made several

revisions to the OBD II regulations.

Because the Agency cannot simply

accept the revised OBD II without

undergoing the federal regulatory

process, any optional compliance with

California OBD II under the current

federal regulations must be done against

the OBD II regulations as they existed in

February, 1993 (ARB Mail Out #92–56,

November, 1992). However, the ARB

has determined that several

manufacturers would have difficulty

complying with the OBD II regulations

as they existed in February, 1993. The

most notable requirements that

currently pose difficulties are those for

engine misfire detection under all

positive torque engine speeds and

conditions and full OBD II

implementation on alternative fueled

vehicles. Additionally, most

manufacturers have indicated difficulty

meeting other aspects of the OBD II

regulations due to, for example, the

complexity of the computer software

requirements, and unpredictable driver

actions such as resting a foot on the gas

pedal while stopped at a traffic light. It

is these additional difficulties that have

prompted ARB to provide a

‘‘deficiency’’ allowance in their revised

OBD II regulations whereby

manufacturers can certify as OBD II

compliant despite some reasonably

acceptable and unplanned deficiency in

the OBD system.

As a result of the ARB revisions to

OBD II, and to remain consistent with

the original intent of providing for

optional compliance with OBD II for

federal OBD purposes, this direct final

rulemaking will provide the same
15244 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

4 59 FR 48472, September 21, 1994. 5Title 13 California Code § 1968, p. 614.16.1.

option but will require that

manufacturers choosing this option

comply with the more recent OBD II

regulations contained in ARB Mail Out

#95–03. This means that any federal

vehicles complying with federal OBD by

optionally complying with California

OBD II are allowed the same

deficiencies as allowed under the OBD

II provisions. Note, however, that a

manufacturer requesting certification of

a deficient OBD II system must receive

EPA acceptance of any deficiency

independently of an acceptance made

by ARB. The Agency will use the same

criteria specified by the ARB, those

criteria being the extent to which the

requirements are satisfied overall on the

vehicle applications in question, the

extent to which the resultant diagnostic

system design will be more effective

than earlier OBD systems, and a

demonstrated good-faith effort to meet

the requirements in full by evaluating

and considering the best available

monitoring technology. The Agency will

make every effort to make

determinations of OBD II deficiency

acceptance in concert with ARB staff to

avoid the potential for conflicting

determinations. However, the extent to

which the agencies can make concurrent

and coordinated findings will rely

heavily on the manufacturer, who will

be expected to provide any necessary

information to both agencies in parallel

rather than pursuing deficiency

determinations on a separate basis.

B. Allowance of OBD Deficiencies for

Federal OBD Vehicles

Consistent with ARB, the Agency has

determined that a similar provision

must also be provided for those vehicles

certifying to the federal OBD

requirements of § 86.094–17. This is

necessary for the same reasons it was

necessary for ARB to make the change.

Despite the best efforts of

manufacturers, many have needed to

certify vehicles with some sort of

deficiency when unanticipated

problems arose that could not be

remedied in time to meet production

schedules. Given the newness and

considerable complexity of designing,

producing, and installing the

components and systems that make up

the OBD system, manufacturers have

expressed and demonstrated difficulty

in complying with every aspect of the

OBD requirements, and such difficulty

appears likely to continue into the 1996

and 1997 model years. The Agency

believes that 100 percent compliance

can be achieved, but during the initial

years of OBD implementation, EPA

believes that some sort of relief must be

provided to allow for certification of

vehicles that, despite the best efforts of

the manufacturers, have deficient OBD

systems.

The EPA ‘‘deficiency’’ allowance

should not be seen as a waiver of any

kind. EPA will continue to grant blanket

waivers for 1994 and/or 1995 model

year vehicles. However, beginning with

the 1996 model year, blanket waivers

will not be granted. Though EPA will

accept minor deficiencies, EPA does not

intend to accept any deficiency requests

that include the complete lack of a

required diagnostic monitor.

Furthermore, EPA does not intend to

certify vehicles with federal OBD

systems that have more than one OBD

system deficiency, and EPA will not

allow carryover of any deficiency to the

following model year unless it can be

demonstrated that correction of the

deficiency requires hardware

modifications that absolutely cannot be

accomplished in the time available, as

determined by the Administrator. These

limitations should prevent a

manufacturer from using the deficiency

allowance as a means to avoid

compliance or delay OBD

implementation.

C. Relief for Alternative Fueled Vehicles

The acceptance of the recent OBD II

regulations also means that alternativefueled federal vehicles optionally

complying with California OBD II are

provided considerable relief relative to

previous versions of OBD II. This direct

final rule will make the same provisions

available for vehicles certified

specifically to the federal OBD

requirements of § 86.094–17. Previously,

OBD II required that alternative fueled

vehicles comply fully with all

applicable requirements beginning in

the 1996 model year. EPA’s final

rulemaking on gaseous fuels 4 required

that LDVs and LDTs fueled by liquified

petroleum gas (LPG) meet OBD

requirements beginning with optionally

certified vehicles in the 1994 model

year. The gaseous fuels rulemaking also

required that natural gas vehicles meet

OBD requirements beginning with the

1998 model year. However,

manufacturers have stated that, due to

the workload associated with complying

fully with the OBD requirements on

gasoline vehicles, coupled with the low

sales volumes projected for alternative

fueled vehicles, OBD development and

testing for such vehicles cannot be

completed in either the OBD II or

federal OBD timeframes. Manufacturers

have stated that more time is needed to

evaluate the effects of alternative fuels

on component performance to ensure

that OBD diagnostic strategies will be

reliable in-use. As a result of the OBD

implementation deadlines,

manufacturers have considered delaying

plans to sell alternative fueled vehicles.

Recognizing these manufacturer

concerns, and the inherent

environmental benefits of having greater

numbers of alternatively fueled vehicles

manufactured as soon as possible, both

the ARB and EPA have decided to delay

full OBD II/federal OBD implementation

until the 1999 model year for alternative

fueled vehicles. For federal certification

beginning in the 1997 model year for

LPG light-duty vehicles and light-duty

trucks, and beginning in the 1998 model

year for natural gas LDVs and LDTs,

manufacturers will be required to

implement diagnostic strategies to the

extent feasible, but will not be required

to include monitoring strategies for

which the effects of alternative fuels are

of technological concern. Specifically,

manufacturers will be required to

implement electrical circuit continuity

and/or functional checks at a minimum,

and those major system monitors

unaffected by fuel type. In addition,

EPA will not require that federal

alternative fueled vehicles minimally

comply with California OBD I 5 for those

years prior to initiation of applicable

emission standards. Instead, beginning

with the applicability of emission

standards and extending through the

1998 model year, EPA will require

compliance with OBD II or federal OBD

to the extent feasible. This is an

important provision for manufacturers,

since minimal compliance with OBD I

sometimes cannot be met on alternative

fueled vehicles (e.g., OBD I requires

EGR monitoring while many alternative

fueled vehicles have no EGR), and

sometimes manufacturers would rather

comply with OBD II or federal OBD than

comply with OBD I because it is more

accurate and effective (e.g., OBD I

requires pass/fail determinations of

computer input and output components,

while OBD II requires rational decisions

to be made concerning the functional

characteristics of input and output

components, i.e., the component is

working, but is it working the way it

should work?).

D. Revised Engine Misfire Identification

Criteria

Another change being made in this

direct final rulemaking is a revision to

the misfire identification requirement.

Currently, the federal OBD regulation

requires that a fault code identify the

specific cylinder in which a misfire

condition has been detected for those
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15245

6 59 FR 51114, October 7, 1994.

cases where just one cylinder is

misfiring. However, in working toward

meeting the expanded misfire

monitoring requirements of OBD II for

the 1997 model year (detection under all

positive torque engine conditions), some

manufacturers have found that specific

cylinder identification can be unreliable

at higher engine speeds. The current

federal OBD requirement does not

specifically require misfire detection at

such engine speeds, but the Agency

does not want to provide any incentive

for manufacturers to disable misfire

monitoring under conditions where

misfire can occur and can be reliably

detected, even where those conditions

are outside the range of Federal Test

Procedure (FTP) operation.

Consequently, the new provision will

allow a manufacturer to disable

algorithms employed to identify the

misfiring cylinder under certain

operating conditions if it can be

demonstrated that the algorithm would

not operate reliably when such

conditions exist. This change will have

no impact on the operating conditions

under which misfire is to be detected,

and it is consistent with changes

recently made to the OBD II regulations.

E. Delay of the Signal Access

Requirements of SAE J1979 Test Modes

6 and 7

Also being changed in this direct final

rulemaking is a delay to the 1997 model

year for full implementation of the

signal access requirements specified in

§§ 86.094–17(f)(3) and 86.094–17(h).

Test modes 6 and 7 have only recently

been added to Society of Automotive

Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice

J1979 to standardize the format for

making available numerical test results

and limits for monitored components

and systems, and the one-trip trouble

codes for continuously monitored

components. This information is helpful

in diagnosis and repair of emissionrelated malfunctions.

F. Extension of Limited Waiver

Provisions Into the 1995 Model Year

EPA is providing an extension

through the 1995 model year of a

limited waiver provision found in

§ 86.094–17(i). Previously, this limited

waiver provision was provided for 1994

model year vehicles only. As decided in

the February, 1993, OBD final

rulemaking, there may be some engine

families with very low sales volumes

that have never been equipped with an

OBD I or similar OBD system. In such

cases, EPA may make special

considerations by granting waivers as

done in the 1994 model year for the

1995 model year to a system less than

OBD I. EPA will consider such factors

as manufacturer projections of very low

sales volume for an engine family (e.g.,

5000 or less), scheduled phase-out of

significant engine technology with the

1994 or 1995 model years for that

engine family, and whether or not the

engine, or any similar engine within the

manufacturer’s product line, has ever

been equipped with an OBD I or similar

OBD system in making waiver decisions

to a system less than OBD I. As stated,

this provision was previously available

only for 1994 model year vehicles and

is now being provided for 1995 model

year vehicles. Note that the Agency has

no intention of providing this limited

waiver provision for the 1996 model

year.

G. Revised Electrical Continuity/

Functionality Check Provisions

Also being changed in this direct final

rulemaking is the electrical circuit

continuity monitoring provision of

§ 86.094–17(b)(1). This change is being

made to clarify the Agency’s stance that

component functionality checks (i.e., a

check of the functional characteristics of

a component/system) are an acceptable

and perhaps more effective diagnostic

tool than an electrical continuity check

alone. The current requirement specifies

that, ‘‘* * * all emission-related

powertrain components connected to a

computer shall, at a minimum, be

monitored for circuit continuity.’’ The

new requirement specifies that a

functional system check may be

performed provided the manufacturer

can demonstrate that the functional

check is equivalent or superior to the

circuit continuity monitor.

Correspondingly, the certification

provisions of § 86.094–30 and § 86.095–

30 are being changed to reflect the

monitoring requirement change being

made to § 86.094–17(b)(1). The new

certification provisions specify that the

MIL must illuminate upon electrical

disconnection of the evaporative purge

control (if equipped), or the operation of

any emission-related powertrain

component which results in emission

increases equal to any one of the 0.2/

1.7/0.5 g/mi HC/CO/NOX emission

thresholds.

These changes are similar to a change

recently made to the OBD II regulations

which requires that the MIL be

illuminated for any emission-related

powertrain component malfunction

causing emissions to increase by 15

percent of the applicable emission

standard. Section 86.094–17(b)

currently requires that the OBD system,

at a minimum, detect loss of circuit

continuity in any emission-related

powertrain component connected to a

computer. This requirement will still

apply as the minimum acceptable

monitoring approach. However, because

the Agency believes that a functional

check can be a more effective diagnostic

tool than an electrical continuity check

alone, the Agency will accept a

functional check. The Agency will

minimally accept an electrical

continuity check provided the

manufacturer can demonstrate the

adequacy of such a check.

H. Deletion of Anti-Tampering

Regulations

Also being changed in this direct final

rulemaking is the deletion of § 86.094–

18 and the revision of § 86.094–17(j) for

reasons specified above and in Federal

Register notice of court decisions

regarding Agency regulations.6 EPA is

continuing to review its policy concerns

regarding tampering. EPA may in the

future determine that it is appropriate to

promulgate new regulations to address

these concerns. If the Agency

determines that new regulations are

appropriate, EPA will at that time

publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

addressing these concerns.

III. Public Participation and Effective

Date

The Agency is publishing this action

as a direct final rule because it views the

changes contained herein as

noncontroversial and anticipates no

adverse or critical comments. This

direct final rulemaking alters an existing

provision by aligning federal OBD

requirements with the most recent

California OBD II requirements. Auto

manufacturers should not take issue

since they favor the requirements

intended under this rule as they will

save costs without impacting OBD

system effectiveness, and they are

provided more leadtime for

development of OBD systems for

alternative fueled vehicles. Aftermarket

manufacturers and the independent

service industry should not take issue

since the rule will not affect the

serviceability of vehicles or the design

of replacement parts. Aftermarket fuel

conversion kit manufacturers should not

take issue since they favor additional

leadtime for development of OBD

systems. Environmental groups should

not take issue since the rule will not

significantly affect the emission

reductions associated with OBD, and

the rule will provide regulatory relief for

alternative fueled vehicles allowing

these vehicles to be more readily

introduced into the vehicle fleet.
15246 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

7 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).

In addition, the Agency’s deletion of

the anti-tampering regulations is

required by court order.

This action will be effective on May

22, 1995 unless EPA is notified by April

24, 1995 that adverse or critical

comments will be submitted. EPA

requests that, should any adverse or

critical comments be submitted, they be

submitted according to the specific

issues as identified below:

(a) Acceptance of Revised California

OBD II

(b) Allowance of OBD Deficiencies for

Federal OBD Vehicles

(c) Relief for Alternative Fueled

Vehicles

(d) Revised Engine Misfire

Identification Criteria

(e) Delay of the Signal Access

Requirements of SAE J1979 Test Modes

6 and 7

(f) Extension of Limited Waiver

Provisions into the 1995 Model Year

(g) Revised Electrical Continuity/

Functionality Check Provisions

(h) Deletion of Anti-Tampering

Regulations

Should EPA receive such notice of

adverse or critical comments on the

specific issues as identified above, EPA

will publish one action withdrawing the

provisions of this final action

corresponding to that specific issue. A

subsequent action will then be

published proposing those provisions

and requesting comments.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

Under Executive Order 12866 7, the

Agency must determine whether the

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and

therefore subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(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.

It has been determined that this rule

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to

OMB review.

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping

Requirements

This direct final rulemaking does not

change the information collection

requirements submitted to and

approved by OMB in association with

the OBD final rulemaking (58 FR 9468,

February 19, 1993; and, 59 FR 38372,

July 28, 1994).

C. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

requires Federal agencies to identify

potentially adverse impacts of federal

regulations upon small entities. This

direct final rulemaking will provide

regulatory relief to both large and small

volume automobile manufacturers by

maintaining consistency with California

OBD II requirements, by providing the

limited 1995 model year waiver, by

allowing deficiencies for federal OBD

compliance, and by providing

regulatory relief for alternative fueled

vehicles. This direct final rulemaking

will have no impact on businesses

which manufacture, rebuild, distribute,

or sell automotive parts, nor those

involved in automotive service and

repair.

Therefore, pursuant to section 605(b)

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 605(B), the Administrator

certifies that this regulation will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and

implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part

1320, do not apply to this action as it

does not involve the collection of

information as defined therein.

E. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking

Documents

Electronic copies of the preamble and

the regulatory text of this direct final

rulemaking are available on the Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards

(OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network

bulletin Board System (TTNBBS).

Instructions for accessing TTNBBS and

downloading the relevant files are

described below.

TTNBBS can be accessed using a dialin telephone line (919) 541–5742 and a

1200, 2400, or 9600 bps modem

(equipment up to 14.4 Kbps can be

accommodated). The parity of the

modem should be set to N or none, the

data bits to 8, and the stop bits to 1.

When first signing on the bulletin board,

the user will be required to answer some

basic informational questions to register

into the system. After registering,

proceed through the following options

from a series of menus:

(T) Gateway to TTN Technical Areas

(Bulletin Boards)

(M) OMS

(K) Rulemaking and Reporting

At this point, the system will list all

available files in the chosen category in

chronological order with brief

descriptions. File information can be

obtained from the ‘‘READ.ME’’ file. To

download a file, the user needs to

choose a file transfer protocol

appropriate for the user’s computer from

the options listed on the terminal.

TTNBBS is available 24 hours a day,

7 days a week except Monday morning

from 8–12 Eastern Time, when the

system is down for maintenance and

backup. For help in accessing the

system, call the systems operator at

(919) 541–5384 in Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina, during normal

business hours Eastern Time.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Gasoline,

Incorporation by reference, Motor

vehicles, Motor vehicle pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: March 2, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

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 AIR

POLLUTION FROM NEW AND IN-USE

MOTOR VEHICLES AND NEW AND INUSE MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES:

CERTIFICATION AND TEST

PROCEDURES

1. The authority citation for part 86

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 202, 203, 205, 206, 207,

208, 215, 216, 217, and 301(a), Clean Air Act,

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7524,

7525, 7541, 7542, 7549, 7550, 7552, and

7601(a)).

Subpart A—[Amended]

2. Section 86.094–17 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b)(1), (e)(2), (f)(3),

(i), and (j) to read as follows:

§ 86.094–17 Emission control diagnostic

system for 1994 and later light-duty

vehicles and light-duty trucks.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15247

(b) (1) The electronic evaporative

emission purge control, if equipped, and

all emission-related powertrain

components connected to a computer

shall, at a minimum, be monitored for

circuit continuity. In lieu of monitoring

circuit continuity, a functional system

check may be performed provided the

manufacturer can demonstrate that the

functional check is equivalent or

superior to the circuit continuity

monitor. All components required by

these regulations to be monitored shall

be evaluated periodically, but no less

frequently than once per Urban

Dynamometer Driving Schedule as

defined in appendix I, paragraph (a), of

this part, or similar trip.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) For a single misfiring cylinder, the

fault code(s) shall identify the cylinder,

unless the manufacturer submits data

and/or an engineering evaluation which

adequately demonstrate that the

misfiring cylinder cannot be reliably

identified under certain operating

conditions; multiple misfiring cylinders

need not be uniquely identified if a

distinct multiple misfire fault code is

stored.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(3) For all emission control

components and systems for which

specific on-board evaluation tests are

conducted (catalyst, oxygen sensor,

etc.), the results of the most recent test

performed by the vehicle, and the limits

to which the system is compared shall

be available through the data link per

SAE J1979 specifications as referenced

in paragraph (h) of this section

beginning no later than the 1997 model

year. The Administrator may allow a

pass/fail indication for the most recent

test results for those monitored

components and systems for which such

an indication is more appropriate (e.g.,

misfire detection, fuel system

monitoring, etc.).

* * * * *

(i) Upon application by the

manufacturer, the Administrator may

either waive the requirements of this

section for specific components of any

class or category of light-duty vehicles

or light-duty trucks for model years

1994 or 1995 (or both), or, through the

1998 model year, the Administrator may

accept an OBD system as compliant

even though specific requirements are

not fully met. Such waivers or

compliances without meeting specific

requirements will be granted only if

compliance would be infeasible or

unreasonable considering such factors

as, but not limited to, technical

feasibility, lead time and production

cycles including phase-in or phase-out

of engines or vehicle designs and

programmed upgrades of computers,

and if any unmet requirements are not

carried over from the previous model

year except where unreasonable

hardware modifications would be

necessary to correct the noncompliance,

and the manufacturer has demonstrated

an acceptable level of effort toward

compliance as determined by the

Administrator. For alternative fueled

vehicles (i.e., natural gas, liquified

petroleum gas, or methanol), beginning

with the model year for which emission

standards are applicable and extending

through the 1998 model year,

manufacturers may request the

Administrator to waive specific

monitoring requirements of this section

for which monitoring may not be

reliable with respect to the use of the

alternative fuel. At a minimum, all

vehicles covered by this section,

including those receiving a waiver as

described in this paragraph, shall be

equipped with an OBD system meeting

either the California OBD I

requirements, or some acceptable

portion of the California OBD II or

federal OBD requirements as specified

in this section, except that for the 1994

and 1995 model years EPA may grant a

waiver to a system less than OBD I

giving consideration to such factors as

manufacturer projections of very low

sales volume for an engine family (e.g.,

5000 or less), scheduled phase-out of

significant engine technology with the

1994 or 1995 model years for that

engine family, and whether or not the

engine, or any similar engine within the

manufacturer’s product line, has ever

been equipped with an OBD I or similar

OBD system.

(j) Demonstration of compliance with

California OBD II requirements (Title 13

California Code 1968.1), as modified

pursuant to California Mail Out #95–03

(January 19, 1995), shall satisfy the

requirements of this section through the

1998 model year except that compliance

with Title 13 California Code 1968.1(d),

pertaining to tampering protection, is

not required to satisfy the requirements

of this section.

§ 86.094–18 [Removed].

3. Section 86.094–18 is removed.

4. Section 86.094–30 is amended by

revising paragraph (f)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 86.094–30 Certification.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(4) The electronic evaporative purge

control device (if equipped) is

disconnected or the operation of any

emission-related powertrain component

connected to a computer results in an

increase in emissions of 0.2 g/mi HC or

1.7 g/mi CO or 0.5 g/mi NOx on a

normal temperature (20 to 30 °C)

emission certification test.

5. Section 86.095–30 is amended by

revising paragraph (f)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 86.095–30 Certification.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(4) The electronic evaporative purge

control device (if equipped) is

disconnected or the operation of any

emission-related powertrain component

connected to a computer results in an

increase in emissions of 0.2 g/mi HC or

1.7 g/mi CO or 0.5 g/mi NOx on a

normal temperature (20 to 30 °C)

emission certification test.

[FR Doc. 95–6272 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5176–9]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of deletion of the Crystal

City Airport Superfund Site (Site) from

the National Priorities List.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of

the Site in Crystal City, Texas, from the

National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL

is Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 300 which

is the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to Section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA).

EPA and the State of Texas have

determined that all appropriate Fundfinanced responses under CERCLA have

been implemented and that no further

cleanup by responsible parties is

appropriate. Moreover, EPA and the

State of Texas have determined that

remedial actions conducted at the Site

to date have been protective of public

health, welfare, and the environment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 23, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ernest R. Franke, Remedial Project

Manager, US EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

(214) 665–8521.