[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15242-15247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6272]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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 On-Board 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 on-board 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 [[Page 15243]] 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<SUP>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.

    \1\ 58 FR 9468, February 19, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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<SUP>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.

    \2\ 59 FR 48472, September 21, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Sec. 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 anti-tampering 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 anti-tampering 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<SUP>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.

    \3\ 59 FR 51114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 [[Page 15244]] 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 Sec. 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 
alternative-fueled 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 Sec. 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<SUP>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.

    \4\59 FR 48472, September 21, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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<SUP>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?).

    \5\Title 13 California Code Sec. 1968, p. 614.16.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
[[Page 15245]] 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 Secs. 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 emission-related 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 86.094-30 and 
Sec. 86.095-30 are being changed to reflect the monitoring requirement 
change being made to Sec. 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/
NO<INF>X 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 Sec. 86.094-18 and the revision of Sec. 86.094-17(j) for reasons 
specified above and in Federal Register notice of court decisions 
regarding Agency regulations.<SUP>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.

    \6\ 59 FR 51114, October 7, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
[[Page 15246]]

    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<SUP>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:

    \7\ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 dial-in 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 IN-USE 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:


Sec. 86.094-17  Emission control diagnostic system for 1994 and later 
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.

* * * * *
[[Page 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.


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 NO<INF>x on a normal 
temperature (20 to 30  deg.C) emission certification test.
    5. Section 86.095-30 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(4) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 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 NO<INF>x on a normal 
temperature (20 to 30  deg.C) emission certification test.

[FR Doc. 95-6272 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P