Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0100-0010
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-03-28T05:00Z

State
of
California
AIR
RESOURCES
BOARD
Final
Statement
of
Reasons
for
Rulemaking,
Including
Summary
of
Comments
and
Agency
Response
PUBLIC
HEARING
TO
CONSIDER
ENGINE
MANUFACTURER
DIAGNOSTIC
SYSTEM
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
2007
AND
SUBSEQUENT
MODEL
YEAR
HEAVY­
DUTY
ENGINES
Public
Hearing
Date:
May
20,
2004
Agenda
Item
No.:
04­
5­
4
I.
GENERAL
The
Staff
Report:
Initial
Statement
of
Reasons
("
ISOR"
or
"
Staff
Report")
for
Rulemaking,
entitled
Engine
Manufacturer
Diagnostic
System
Requirements
for
2007
and
Subsequent
Model
Year
Heavy­
Duty
Engines
released
April
2,
2004,
is
incorporated
by
reference
herein.

Following
a
public
hearing
on
May
20,
2004,
the
Air
Resources
Board
("
Board"
or
"
ARB")
by
Resolution
04­
16
approved,
with
modifications,
the
adoption
of
section
1971,
title
13,
California
Code
of
Regulations
(
CCR).
Upon
becoming
operative,
section
1971
would
establish
engine
manufacturer
diagnostic
("
EMD")
requirements
for
2007
and
subsequent
model
year
on­
road
heavy­
duty
engines
and
vehicles
produced
for
sale
in
California
that
have
a
gross
vehicle
weight
rating
greater
than
14,000
pounds.
Resolution
04­
16
is
incorporated
by
reference
herein.
At
the
hearing
on
May
20,
2004,
in
response
to
comments
received,
the
staff
presented
the
Board
with
modifications
to
the
regulatory
language
originally
proposed
in
the
Staff
Report.
The
changes
included:

1)
Clarification
that
engine
manufacturers
would
be
responsible
for
the
EMD
system
(
section
1971(
a)).
2)
Clarification
that
the
proposed
regulation
would
apply
only
to
gasoline
and
dieselfueled
heavy­
duty
engines
(
section
1971(
b)).
3)
Addition
of
definitions
for
"
engine"
and
"
engine
manufacturer"
(
sections
1971(
c)(
3)
and
(
c)(
4)).
4)
Modification
of
the
definition
of
"
on­
road
heavy­
duty
engine"
to
include
"
related
aftertreatment
components"
(
section
1971(
c)(
9)).
5)
Deletion
of
all
references
of
"
powertrain"
in
the
regulation
(
sections
1971(
e)(
4)(
A)
and
(
f)(
2)).
6)
Change
of
all
references
of
"
manufacturer"
in
regulation
to
"
engine
manufacturer."

Within
the
resolution,
the
Board
directed
the
Executive
Officer
to
incorporate
the
approved
modifications
into
the
proposed
regulatory
text,
along
with
such
other
conforming
modifications
as
may
be
appropriate,
and
to
make
such
modifications
­
2­
available
for
public
comment.
These
modifications
were
made
available
for
public
comment
in
the
ARB's
Notice
of
Public
Availability
of
Modified
Text
(
15­
Day
Notice)
on
July
26,
2004.
The
15­
Day
Notice
is
incorporated
by
reference
herein.

Economic
and
Fiscal
Impacts.
Any
business
involved
in
manufacturing,
purchasing,
or
servicing
heavy­
duty
engines
and
vehicles
could
be
affected
by
the
proposed
regulation.
There
are
21
engine
manufacturers
and
3
transmission
and
other
powertrain­
related
manufacturers
that
would
be
affected
by
the
regulation.
None
of
these
businesses
are
located
in
California.
Of
these
businesses,
two
of
the
engine
manufacturing
companies
are
assumed
to
be
"
small
businesses"
(
i.
e.,
selling
less
than
150
engines
per
year
based
on
California
certification
data).
There
are
approximately
eight
major
assemblers
of
complete
heavy­
duty
vehicles
that
are
sold
in
the
California
market,
but
staff
has
been
unable
to
estimate
the
total
number
of
manufacturers
that
assemble
and
sell
complete
heavy­
duty
vehicles
(
i.
e.,
truck
builders
or
coach
builders)
in
California.
Staff
has
thus
been
unable
to
determine
how
many
of
these
companies
are
located
in
California
and
how
many
are
considered
"
small
businesses."
However,
it
is
assumed
that
for
these
manufacturers,
the
regulation
would
impose
little,
if
any,
cost.

Engine
manufacturers
are
currently
developing
substantially
redesigned
emission
control
systems
to
meet
the
2007
emission
standards.
Along
with
that
redesign,
manufacturers
are
adding
hardware
for
proper
control
of
the
new
emission
components.
Accordingly,
the
costs
for
the
additional
hardware
and
new
emission
controls
have
already
been
accounted
for
in
the
costs
to
comply
with
the
2007
emission
standards.
Further,
this
very
same
hardware
will
be
used
to
meet
the
proposed
EMD
system
requirements.
As
such,
the
proposed
heavy­
duty
EMD
regulation
is
not
expected
to
result
in
additional
hardware
costs
for
manufacturers.

In
regards
to
software,
engine
manufacturers
are
also
currently
increasing
computer
memory
space
to
accommodate
the
needed
software
algorithms
for
proper
emission
control.
Given
the
limited
scope
of
the
proposed
EMD
requirements
for
fuel
system,
exhaust
gas
recirculation
(
EGR)
system,
and
particulate
matter
(
PM)
trap
monitoring
and
because
the
requirements
are
structured
around
detecting
a
fault
when
the
system
is
operating
outside
of
the
manufacturer's
control
limits,
the
cost
for
additional
software
(
if
any)
would
be
negligible.
For
the
other
emission­
related
electronic
components,
the
proposed
EMD
monitoring
requirements
are
very
similar
to
the
level
of
diagnostics
manufacturers
currently
implement
to
aid
service
technicians
and
to
ensure
the
engine
and
control
system
is
robust
in
monitoring
failures
that
may
occur
in­
use.
As
such,
it
is
anticipated
that
there
will
be
negligible
or
no
additional
cost
for
software
to
meet
the
proposed
EMD
requirements.

The
Board
has
determined
that
this
regulatory
action
will
not
result
in
a
mandate
to
any
local
agency
or
school
district
the
costs
of
which
are
reimbursable
by
the
state
pursuant
to
Part
7
(
commencing
with
section
17500),
Division
4,
Title
2
of
the
Government
Code.
­
3­
Alternatives.
For
the
reasons
stated
in
the
Staff
Report,
the
Board
has
determined
that
no
alternative
considered
by
the
agency
would
be
more
effective
in
carrying
out
the
purpose
for
which
the
regulatory
action
was
proposed
or
would
be
as
effective
and
less
burdensome
to
affected
private
persons
than
the
action
taken
by
the
Board.

I
I.
SUMMARY
OF
COMMENTS
AND
AGENCY
RESPONSE
At
the
May
20,
2004
hearing,
oral
testimony
was
received
in
the
following
order
from:

Mr.
Jed
Mandel,
Engine
Manufacturers
Association
(
EMA)
Mr.
Robert
Clarke,
Truck
Manufacturers
Association
(
TMA)

The
written
comments
were
received
during
the
45­
day
comment
period
prior
to
the
hearing
from:

Mr.
Jed
Mandel
and
Ms.
Lisa
Stegink,
EMA
Mr.
John
Duerr,
Detroit
Diesel
Corporation
(
DDC)

No
comments
were
received
in
response
to
the
15­
Day
Notice.

No
comments
were
submitted
by
the
Office
of
Small
Business
Advocate.

Below
is
a
summary
of
each
objection
or
recommendation
made
regarding
the
specific
regulatory
actions
proposed,
together
with
an
explanation
of
how
the
proposed
action
was
changed
to
accommodate
each
objection
or
recommendation,
or
the
reasons
for
making
no
change.

COMMENTS
IN
SUPPORT
1.
Comment:
We
are
able
to
support
the
EMD
regulation.
(
EMA)

2.
Comment:
We
feel
the
scope
of
the
EMD
regulation
is
generally
appropriate.
(
DDC)

3.
Comment:
The
EMD
regulation
can,
with
some
revisions,
be
accommodated
into
the
2007
model
year
without
jeopardizing
the
success
of
meeting
the
stringent
2007
emission
standards.
(
DDC)

4.
Comment:
The
EMD
regulation
addresses
major
truck
builders'
concerns
about
meeting
the
stringent
2007
emission
standards
by
allowing
engine
and
truck
manufacturers
to
focus
their
resources
on
developing
engines
and
vehicles
that
meet
these
standards.
(
TMA)

5.
Comment:
We
will
commit
to
working
with
ARB
and
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
("
U.
S.
EPA")
on
the
implementation
of
EMD
­
4­
and
future
on­
board
diagnostic
("
OBD")
requirements
for
the
heavy­
duty
engine
industry.
(
EMA)

Agency
Response
to
Comments
1­
5:
We
appreciate
your
comments.

MEETING
2007
EMISSION
STANDARDS
6.
Comment:
The
implementation
of
any
EMD
or
OBD
program
for
2007
and
subsequent
heavy­
duty
engines
cannot
interfere
with
or
burden
manufacturers'
compliance
with
the
more
stringent
2007
emission
standards,
to
which
manufacturers
are
devoting
enormous
resources.
Engine
and
truck
manufacturers
are
also
focused
on
meeting
their
customers'
expectations
for
a
durable
and
reliable
product.
(
EMA)(
TMA)

7.
Comment:
Any
diagnostic
system
requirements
that
add
workload
or
costs
may
adversely
affect
these
goals.
(
EMA)

Agency
Response
to
Comments
6­
7:
The
staff
believes
the
EMD
regulation
will
result
in
negligible
costs
and
minimal
additional
workload.
As
stated
in
the
Staff
Report,
the
EMD
requirements
build
on
the
basic
diagnostic
system
heavy­
duty
engine
manufacturers
are
currently
using
on
their
engines
to
provide
diagnostic
capability
for
the
most
important
emission
control
systems.
In
other
words,
almost
all
engine
manufacturers
are
already
currently
meeting
the
EMD
requirements.
Thus,
the
requirements
are
expected
to
result
in
no
additional
hardware
and
little,
if
any,
software
changes.
To
that
end,
the
staff
believes
the
EMD
regulation
satisfies
the
requirements
of
the
commenters.

HARMONIZATION
WITH
U.
S.
EPA
8.
Comment:
The
adoption
of
the
EMD
regulation
and
any
additional
OBD
requirements
should
be
in
coordination
with
U.
S.
EPA
to
assure
a
harmonized
nationwide
program.
It
is
important
to
have
a
single
set
of
OBD
requirements
applicable
nationwide
for
all
heavy­
duty
engines.
(
EMA)(
DDC)

9.
Comment:
Without
harmonized
regulations,
manufacturers
may
be
forced
to
provide
unique
products
for
the
California
market,
which
would
result
in
additional
costs
and
burdens,
possible
confusion
among
customers
and
operators,
and
diminishment
of
the
overall
effectiveness
of
EMD
or
OBD.
(
EMA)

10.
Comment:
It
is
also
imperative
to
have
a
harmonized
program
for
the
"
OBD
II"
(
the
level
of
requirements
now
applicable
to
light­
and
medium­
duty
vehicles)
requirements
that
ARB
will
adopt.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response
to
Comments
8­
10:
As
stated
in
the
Staff
Report,
ARB
and
U.
S.
EPA
are
committed
to
working
together
to
develop
a
harmonized
program
regarding
OBD
system
requirements
for
heavy­
duty
engines.
While
each
agency
has
separate
rulemaking
processes
and
thus,
cannot
guarantee
such
­
5­
harmonization
with
absolute
certainty,
both
agencies
acknowledge
the
benefits
of
a
harmonized
program
and
continue
to
work
towards
achieving
it.

11.
Comment:
To
ensure
a
harmonized
program,
ARB
and
U.
S.
EPA
should
work
together
as
coequal
partners.
The
alternative
approach
in
which
ARB
or
U.
S.
EPA
takes
the
lead
and
then
requires
the
other
authority
to
choose
between
the
program
adopted
by
the
lead
agency
or
one
that
it
perceives
as
superior
risks
disharmonization
and
must
be
avoided.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response:
As
stated
in
the
previous
response,
both
agencies
have
separate
rulemaking
processes
that
mandate
separate
action.
It
is
not
practical
nor
feasible
to
have
both
agencies
simultaneously
and
in
complete
unison
adopt
identical
regulations.
Accordingly,
it
is
very
likely
that
one
agency
will
end
up
adopting
a
rulemaking
before
the
other,
but
that
does
not
mean
that
one
agency
is
the
lead
agency
nor
does
it
mandate
a
non­
harmonized
program.
Both
agencies
have
indeed
adopted
harmonized
programs
in
the
past
through
nonsimultaneous
separate
rulemakings
including
items
such
as
the
recently
adopted
heavy­
duty
engine
exhaust
emission
standards.
Again,
also
as
stated
above,
both
agencies
are
committed
to
working
together
as
partners
to
achieve
a
harmonized
program
and
will
continue
to
do
so.

LIMITING
EMD
REQUIREMENTS
TO
JUST
ENGINE
MANUFACTURERS
12.
Comment:
The
scope
of
the
EMD
regulation
should
be
limited
to
just
those
components
the
engine
manufacturer
has
control
over:
the
engine
and
the
aftertreatment
systems.
(
EMA)(
TMA)(
DDC)

13.
Comment:
The
EMD
regulation
should
explicitly
exclude
any
monitoring
requirements
for
transmission
or
other
powertrain
components,
since
engine
manufacturers
have
no
control
over
these
other
powertrains.
The
engine
manufacturer
may
not
even
have
any
business
relationship
at
all
with
the
supplier
of
other
powertrain
components.
(
EMA)(
DDC)

14.
Comment:
The
term
"
manufacturer"
is
broadly
defined
in
the
EMD
regulation
as
producers
of
engines,
transmissions,
other
powertrain
components,
chassis
or
coaches,
and
seems
to
recognize
the
non­
integrated
nature
of
the
heavy­
duty
industry.
However,
the
regulation
does
not
explicitly
state
which
entity
has
responsibility
for
meeting
the
requirements
(
instead,
it
simply
indicated
it
is
required
to
be
met
by
the
"
manufacturer").
Since
EMD
stands
for
"
engine
manufacturer
diagnostics,"
it
can
be
assumed
that
engine
manufacturers
are
responsible,
which
is
not
reasonable.
ARB
should
either
clearly
define
the
responsibilities
of
each
entity
(
and
make
sure
an
entity
is
not
responsible
for
a
requirement
that
is
not
under
its
design
control)
or
delete
all
provisions
applicable
to
non­
engine
powertrain
components.
(
DDC)

15.
Comment:
"
Engine"
must
be
defined
to
refer
to
only
the
engine
and
related
aftertreatment
system
components.
(
EMA)
­
6­
16.
Comment:
The
definition
of
"
manufacturer"
should
be
revised
to
clarify
that
engine
manufacturers
are
not
responsible
for
non­
engine
system
components
or
equipment.
(
EMA)

17.
Comment:
The
reference
to
"
other
powertrain
components"
in
section
(
a)
of
the
regulation
should
be
deleted.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response
to
Comments
12­
17:
The
staff
modified
the
regulation
by
deleting
all
references
to
"
powertrain,"
including
the
reference
"
other
powertrain
components"
in
section
(
a)
of
the
EMD
regulation.
The
staff
also
added
the
term
"
engine"
to
section
(
c)
with
the
definition
"
for
the
purpose
of
this
regulation
means
on­
road
heavy­
duty
engine,"
and
modified
the
definition
of
"
on­
road
heavy­
duty
engine"
to
mean
"
an
engine
and
related
aftertreatment
components
certified
to
the
requirements
of
title
13,
CCR
sections
1956.1
or
1956.8."
The
staff
also
deleted
the
term
"
manufacturer"
and
its
definition
from
section
(
c)
of
the
regulation.
In
its
place,
the
term
"
engine
manufacturer"
has
been
defined
to
be
the
manufacturer
that
is
"
the
holder
of
the
Executive
Order
for
the
engine
family."
All
references
to
"
manufacturer"
in
the
regulation
have
been
modified
to
"
engine
manufacturer"
to
make
it
clear
that
the
engine
manufacturer
is
the
party
responsible
for
meeting
the
requirements.
The
modifications
were
made
in
the
15­
Day
Notice
at
the
request
of
the
commenters.

18.
Comment:
In
the
definition
of
"
on­
road
heavy­
duty
engine"
in
section
(
c),
the
phrase
"
or
a
powertrain
component
designed
for
use
with
such
an
engine"
should
be
deleted.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response:
Staff
deleted
this
phrase
in
the
15­
Day
Notice
as
requested
by
the
commenter.

19.
Comment:
The
"
redefinition"
of
the
term
"
engine"
in
section
(
b)
of
the
regulation
(
where
it
is
referred
to
as
"
powertrain
components
(
e.
g.,
engine,
transmission,
hybrid)
that
are
utilized
in
heavy­
duty
vehicles")
flies
in
the
face
of
the
common
understanding
of
the
word
engine,
and
should
be
deleted.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response:
Staff
deleted
this
reference
in
section
(
b).
The
modification
was
made
in
the
15­
Day
Notice.

20.
Comment:
ARB
has
not
demonstrated
any
need
or
justification
for
extending
the
EMD
regulation
beyond
engines
(
including
aftertreatment)
to
non­
engine
components.
(
EMA)

21.
Comment:
In­
use
emissions
from
heavy­
duty
vehicles
are
primarily
a
function
of
the
engine
and
related
aftertreatment
systems.
ARB
has
not
provided
any
information
showing
that
imposing
diagnostic
requirements
on
heavy­
duty
vehicle
manufacturers
and
non­
engine
powertrain
component
suppliers
will
result
in
any
real
world
emission
benefits.
(
EMA)(
DDC)
­
7­
22.
Comment:
Non­
engine
powertrain
components
have
no
direct
effect
on
the
brake­
specific
emission
performance
of
the
engines.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response
to
Comments
20­
22:
As
shown
in
the
Agency
Response
to
Comments
12­
17,
the
staff
made
changes
to
the
EMD
regulation
that
would
limit
the
EMD
requirements
to
the
engine
and
related
aftertreatment
components
and
made
these
changes
available
in
the
15­
Day
Notice.
Thus,
the
comments
above
have
been
addressed.

23.
Comment:
The
regulation
should
clearly
indicate
that
the
engine
manufacturer
is
only
responsible
for
providing
diagnostics
for
malfunctions
of
the
emissioncertified
engine
emission
control
system
and
for
the
integrity
of
inputs
to
the
engine
from
non­
engine
vehicle
sensors
that
are
supplied
or
specified
by
the
engine
manufacturer
and
have
the
capability
of
altering
the
engine's
brake
specific
emissions
or
affecting
the
engine's
EMD
system
performance.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response:
With
the
15­
Day
Notice,
the
regulation
was
modified
to
make
it
clear
that
the
engine
manufacturer
is
the
only
one
responsible
for
meeting
the
requirements
of
the
entire
regulation.
Further,
section
(
e)(
4)(
A)
of
the
regulation
provides
clear
direction
that
the
engine
manufacturer
is
responsible
for
providing
diagnostics
that
are
defined
by
the
engine
manufacturer
as
emission­
related
or
are
used
by
the
engine
manufacturer
as
part
of
the
diagnostic
strategy
for
another
component
within
the
EMD
system.
With
the
latter
part
of
this
definition,
the
staff
believes
it
provides
more
clarity
than
the
commenter's
suggestion
of
"
affecting
the
engine's
EMD
system
performance."
With
regards
to
the
suggested
"
altering
the
engine's
brake
specific
emissions,"
the
EMD
regulation
simply
requires
components
designated
by
the
manufacturer
itself
as
"
emissionrelated
to
be
monitored,
which
should
provide
more
flexibility
to
engine
manufacturers
in
meeting
the
regulation
than
the
approach
suggested
by
the
commenter.
Lastly,
the
commenter
requested
that
the
regulation
discriminate
between
inputs
to
the
engine
control
computer
that
are
from
sensors
supplied
or
specified
by
the
engine
manufacturer
versus
output
components
or
input
components
that
don't
meet
that
stated
criteria.
The
commenter's
suggested
approach,
however,
is
not
warranted.
The
regulation
does
not
discriminate
based
on
input
versus
output
or
the
supplier
of
the
input
component
and
requires
monitoring
of
either
one
if
they
indeed
meet
the
criteria
of
being
defined
by
the
engine
manufacturer
as
emission­
related
or
are
used
by
the
engine
manufacturer
as
part
of
the
EMD
system.
The
engine
manufacturer
has
complete
control
over
which
components
it
decides
are
emission­
related
and
which
components
it
designs
its
EMD
system
to
use.
To
the
extent
that
the
manufacturer
in
its
comments
implies
that
it
should
only
be
responsible
for
defining
which
components
are
emission­
related
or
are
used
as
part
of
its
EMD
system
but
have
no
responsibility
for
diagnosing
malfunctions
of
that
component
undermines
the
entire
principle
of
a
diagnostic
system.
­
8­
24.
Comment:
Including
provisions
that
are
not
under
the
engine
manufacturer's
control
(
e.
g.,
transmission)
means
that
ARB
should
have
involved
the
manufacturers
responsible
for
meeting
these
provisions
in
the
rulemaking
and
notified
them
of
the
regulation,
which
they
have
not
done.
(
EMA)(
DDC)

25.
Comment:
This
regulation
would
involve
substantial
time
and
resources
from
both
industry
and
ARB
and
should
be
undertaken
only
after
careful
consideration
from
everyone
involved.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response
to
Comments
24­
25:
Even
though
the
EMD
regulation
made
available
in
the
15­
Day
Notice
does
not
include
any
requirements
for
non­
engine
manufacturers
(
such
as
truck
manufacturers,
coach
builders,
and
other
powertrain
component
manufacturers),
they
have
taken
part
in
the
rulemaking
process
and/
or
have
been
notified
of
the
regulation.
Staff
has
been
in
contact
with
several
transmission
manufacturers
via
phone,
email,
and
in
person,
and
supplier
representatives
have
been
present
at
ARB
workshops
and
other
related
meetings.
The
ARB
has
made
every
effort
to
identify
truck
manufacturers
and
coach
builders
that
would
be
potentially
affected
by
this
regulation.
To
the
extent
that
they
have
been
identified,
the
ARB
has
provided
notice
to
such
manufacturers
and
they
have
been
involved
in
the
regulatory
process.

26.
Comment:
If
the
intent
of
ARB
is
to
include
non­
engine
requirements
in
the
EMD
regulation,
then
ARB
needs
to
establish
certification
and
enforcement
protocols
for
those
previously
unregulated
parties
(
e.
g.,
heavy­
duty
powertrain
component
suppliers
and
vehicle
manufacturers).
(
EMA)(
DDC)

Agency
Response:
Refer
to
previous
agency
responses.
As
modified
in
the
15­
Day
Notice,
the
regulation
only
applies
to
engine
manufacturers
and
the
engines
that
they
produce,
so
the
arguments
made
in
the
comments
are
no
longer
applicable.
Nonetheless,
staff's
previous
proposal,
which
did
impose
requirements
on
non­
engine
manufacturers,
already
did
include
establishment
of
certification
procedures
for
other
powertrain
component
suppliers
(
e.
g.,
transmission
or
hybrid
component
suppliers)
with
the
exact
same
level
of
specification
as
that
required
for
the
engine
manufacturers.
Further,
staff
had
indicated
at
the
time
that
an
enforcement
regulation
for
both
the
engine
manufacturers
and
the
non­
engine
manufacturers
would
be
established
at
a
later
date.

NEED
FOR
OBD
SYSTEMS
27.
Comment:
ARB's
unsupported
assertion
in
the
Staff
Report
that
"
most
emission
problems
occur
as
vehicles
age
and
accumulate
high
mileage"
is
highly
questionable
with
regard
to
heavy­
duty
diesel
engines.
Our
experience
would
indicate
that
this
is
not
true,
since
fairly
extensive
durability
testing
has
shown
that
emission
control
systems
exhibit
minimal
deterioration
at
high
mileage.
ARB
has
even
recently
acknowledged
heavy­
duty
diesel
engines
are
highly
durable
with
a
life
to
overhaul
that
is
greater
than
originally
estimated.
Since
the
­
9­
emission
control
systems
tend
to
be
integral
to
the
engine
design,
deterioration
of
the
emission
control
system
is
often
associated
with
the
loss
of
engine
performance
and
thus
is
likely
to
be
detected
and
corrected
in
a
timely
manner.
ARB
should
perform
detailed
studies
of
current
and
future
emission
control
systems
and
establish
diagnostic
requirements
only
for
malfunctions
that
are
likely
to
occur
in­
use,
will
result
in
a
meaningful
increase
in
emissions,
and
that
are
unlikely
to
be
detected
or
corrected
without
an
OBD
indicator.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response:
The
staff's
assertion
is
not
unsupported
as
the
commenter
suggests,
and
the
commenter's
position
that
it
is
wrong
defies
common
knowledge
and
basic
engineering
principles.

The
commenter
seems
to
believe
that
durability
of
an
engine
is
the
same
as
maintaining
proper
emission
control,
but
these
are
clearly
two
distinct
items.
An
engine
may
indeed
be
durable
and
go
for
long
intervals
before
rebuilding
is
necessary
to
restore
adequate
fuel
economy
and
performance
levels,
yet
emissions
can
greatly
increase
over
time
due
to
malfunctioning
emission
control
components
or
changes
in
engine
control
components
that
do
not
adversely
impact
durability.
While
the
commenter
seems
to
acknowledge
that
his
experience
is
primarily
based
on
engines
with
essentially
zero
emission
controls
(
and
thus,
no
components
to
deteriorate
over
time),
the
commenter's
company
is
already
selling
vehicles
with
emission
controls
such
as
EGR
systems
and
PM
traps
that
do
indeed
become
less
effective
over
time.
Common
examples
include
deterioration
of
the
EGR
system
(
such
as
restricted
flow)
or
the
PM
trap
(
such
as
a
crack
that
allows
PM
emissions
to
go
untrapped),
neither
of
which
will
adversely
affect
engine
durability
but
both
of
which
will
obviously
result
in
increased
emissions.

The
commenter's
position
that
most
failures
of
the
emission
control
system
will
also
result
in
reduced
engine
performance
that
will
prompt
repair
is
incorrect.
While
some
failures
will
undoubtedly
affect
the
performance
of
the
engine
severely
enough
to
prompt
repair,
it
is
unlikely
that
this
subset
is
anywhere
near
the
majority
of
the
failures.
Failures
of
emission
controls
like
EGR
or
PM
trap
cracks
will
often
not
affect
engine
performance
(
they
may
actually
increase
it
and/
or
increase
fuel
economy).

It
is
also
important
to
note
that
diagnostic
systems
are
not
designed
to
detect
multiple
emission
control
components
that
are
partially
deteriorated
yet
cumulatively
result
in
very
high
emissions.
Diagnostic
systems
are
blind
to
such
synergistic
effects.
To
account
for
this,
the
systems
are
designed
to
comprehensively
monitor
every
component
that
has
a
measurable
emission
impact
and
to
monitor
each
component
for
proper
operation
within
design
specifications.
When
any
one
component
deteriorates
to
a
point
where
it,
by
itself,
is
performing
outside
the
manufacturer's
design
specifications,
a
malfunction
is
required
to
be
identified.
This
singular,
but
comprehensive,
approach
helps
mitigate
the
inability
of
the
system
to
comprehend
synergistic
effects
and
minimizes
the
chance
for
high
emitters
to
go
undetected.
­
10­
Accordingly,
the
commenter's
suggestions
that
the
diagnostic
requirements
be
designed
to
only
identify
malfunctions
that
are
most
"
likely
to
occur
in­
use,"
have
a
"
meaningful
increase"
in
emissions,
and
are
"
unlikely
to
be
corrected"
would
only
serve
to
reduce
the
system's
effectiveness
and
increase
the
number
of
high
emitters
that
go
undetected.

Lastly,
diagnostic
systems
are
designed
to
ensure
every
single
vehicle
is
performing
properly
and
identify
individual
vehicles
that
have
a
problem.
Designing
the
system
to
identify
only
the
most
common
failure
modes
or
the
ones
that
have
the
biggest
emission
impact
would
undermine
the
purpose
of
the
system,
reduce
the
benefits
of
the
program,
and
allow
high
emitters
to
go
undetected.
Designing
the
system
to
detect
a
fault
whenever
the
component
is
operating
outside
of
its
design
limits,
irrespective
of
whether
it
is
due
to
a
perceived
"
likely"
failure
or
an
"
unlikely"
failure
mode,
results
in
a
much
more
robust
system
that
doesn't
rely
on
predictions
of
what
may
or
may
not
"
likely"
occur
in
the
field.

28.
Comment:
The
EMD
regulation
should
not
apply
to
alternative­
fueled
heavy­
duty
engines.
(
EMA)(
DDC)

29.
Comment:
In
contrast
to
conventional­
fueled
heavy­
duty
engines
The
software
development
costs
associated
with
meeting
the
EMD
requirements
will
be
significant
for
alternative­
fueled
heavy­
duty
engines,
which
are
of
a
relatively
small
volume.
The
costs
for
conventionally­
fueled
engines
can
be
spread
over
the
large
sales
volumes
of
these
engines.
It
will
generally
not
be
possible
for
engine
manufacturers
to
carry
over
diagnostic
systems
developed
for
conventional­
fueled
engines
to
alternative­
fueled
engines,
so
unique
diagnostic
systems
will
have
to
be
developed,
which
will
result
in
high
costs.
This
would
result
in
reduced
availability
of
these
engines
in
California.
(
EMA)(
DDC)

30.
Comment:
Requiring
alternative­
fueled
engines
to
meet
the
regulation
may
threaten
the
future
commercial
viability
of
these
engines
and
thus
reduce
availability.
It
also
would
not
only
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
niche
users
that
depend
on
having
these
engines
available,
but
could
also
have
an
undesirable
effect
on
air
quality.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response
to
Comments
28­
30:
The
staff
modified
the
regulation
to
explicitly
state
that
the
EMD
regulation
applies
only
to
gasoline­
and
diesel­
fueled
engines.
This
modification
was
made
in
the
15­
Day
Notice.
See
Agency
Response
to
Comments
38­
39
for
discussion
on
costs.

LEADTIME
AND
STABILITY
ISSUES
31.
Comment:
The
EMD
regulation
is
to
take
effect
for
the
2007
model
year,
which
does
not
provide
the
four
years
of
leadtime
that
is
required
under
federal
law.
(
EMA)(
DDC)
­
11­
32.
Comment:
The
EMD
requirements
constitute
emission
standards
that
engine
manufacturers
are
required
to
comply
with
in
order
to
obtain
engine
diagnostic
system
certification.
Thus,
the
regulation
is
subject
to
the
leadtime
and
stability
requirements
of
the
federal
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
(
Section
202(
a)),
which
requires
any
emission
standard
to
go
into
effect
four
or
more
model
years
after
the
year
in
which
they
were
promulgated.
Leadtime
is
measured
by
full
model
years.
"
Model
year"
is
defined
by
EPA
to
include
January
2
of
the
preceding
year
through
December
31
of
the
model
year
date,
so
the
model
year
for
2007
can
begin
as
early
as
January
2,
2006.
Even
if
the
EMD
regulation
was
adopted
today,
it
is
too
late
to
provide
four
full
years'
leadtime
for
implementation
of
the
proposed
regulation
in
2007.
(
EMA)

33.
Comment:
Section
209(
b)(
1)
of
the
CAA
states
that
California
has
no
authority
to
adopt
emission
standards
for
on­
highway
heavy­
duty
engines
unless
those
standards
meet
the
leadtime
and
stability
requirements
of
Section
202(
a).
Further,
California's
Health
and
Safety
Code
Section
43013
requires
the
standards
to
be
adopted
within
feasible
timeframes.
(
EMA)

Agency
Response
to
Comments
31­
33:
The
commenter's
concern
that
the
proposed
regulation
does
not
provide
manufacturers
with
at
least
four
years
of
lead
time
or
three
years
of
stability
as
required
under
CAA
section
202(
a)(
3)(
C)
is
misplaced.
First,
the
commenter
specifically
stated
at
the
hearing
that
the
EMD
regulation
is
"
another
example
of
an
ARB
rule
that
EMA
and
its
members
are
able
to
support."
(
Testimony
of
Jed
Mandel
at
the
May
20,
2004
Public
Hearing,
Tr:
at
p.
59.)
At
the
time
of
Mr.
Mandel's
statement
of
support,
he
and
his
member
companies
were
well
aware
that
the
EMD
regulation
was
scheduled
to
go
into
effect
with
the
2007
model
year.
It
would
be
disingenuous
for
EMA
to
claim
that
they
were
not
aware
of,
or
had
forgotten,
the
provisions
of
CAA
section
202(
a)(
3)
at
the
time
of
Mr.
Mandel's
testimony
in
support
of
the
regulation.
The
above­
referenced
comments,
which
were
part
of
EMA's
written
comments
to
the
regulation,
were
made
on
the
same
day
that
EMA
gave
its
statement
of
support.

Second,
the
ARB
does
not
believe
that
conformance
with
the
federal
4­
year
lead
time
requirement
is
required
for
California
to
qualify
for
a
waiver
of
preemption.
Since
1970,
U.
S.
EPA
has
typically
applied
a
"
2­
pronged"
test
of
whether
California
standards
are
consistent
with
CAA
section
202(
a)
as
required
by
section
209(
b)(
1)(
C).
The
standards
first
must
be
technologically
feasible
in
the
lead­
time
provided
considering
the
cost
of
compliance,
and
second
must
be
compatible
with
the
federal
test
procedures
so
that
a
single
vehicle
could
be
subjected
to
both
tests.
No
more
should
be
required.

This
is
in
accord
with
the
legislative
history
of
section
209.
When
the
California
waiver
provisions
and
the
"
consistent
with
section
202(
a)"
language
were
first
placed
in
the
CAA
in
1965,
section
202(
a)
consisted
of
just
one
sentence
requiring
adequate
lead
time
in
consideration
of
technological
feasibility
and
economic
costs.
In
the
1977
CAA
amendments,
Congress
amended
section
209
"
to
afford
California
the
broadest
possible
discretion
in
selecting
the
best
means
­
12­
to
protect
the
health
of
its
citizens
and
the
public
welfare."
(
H.
R.
Rep.
No.
294,
95th
Cong.,
1st
Sess.
301
(
1977),
reprinted
in
4
Leg.
Hist.,
at
2768.)
At
the
same
time,
Congress
expanded
section
202(
a)
to
add
several
directives
to
U.
S.
EPA
regarding
its
adoption
of
emission
standards,
including
the
four­
year
lead
time
requirement
for
heavy­
duty
vehicles.
(
Emphasis
added.)
Given
Congress's
expressed
intent
to
strengthen
the
waiver
provisions,
it
is
unlikely
Congress
intended
to
apply
the
specific
four­
year
requirement
to
California,
which
would
effectively
narrow
the
deference
provided
to
the
state.

This
is
especially
true
in
the
case
of
OBD
requirements.
Congress
clearly
did
not
intend
the
OBD
requirements
to
be
subject
to
the
lead­
time
and
stability
provisions
of
CAA
section
202(
a)(
3)(
C).
First,
as
indicated
above,
those
requirements
were
first
enacted
in
1977
and
specifically
applied
to
heavy­
duty
vehicle
emission
reductions,
which
at
that
time
solely
consisted
of
tailpipe
and
evaporative
emission
standards
that
Congress
directed
U.
S.
EPA
to
implement
for
new
heavy­
duty
vehicles.
(
1977
CAA,
section
202(
3)(
B).)

It
was
not
until
the
1990
CAA
amendments,
that
Congress
enacted
an
entirely
new
provision,
section
202(
m),
which
directed
the
Administrator
to
adopt
regulations
to
implement
OBD
requirements.
Under
the
new
provision,
Congress
directed
the
Administrator
to
promulgate
regulations
for
new
light­
duty
vehicles
and
light
duty
trucks
within
18
months
of
enactment.
(
CAA
section
202(
m)(
1).)
Additionally,
at
the
Administrator's
discretion,
Congress
provided
U.
S.
EPA
with
equivalent
authority
to
adopt
OBD
requirements
for
new
heavyduty
vehicles.
(
Id.)
The
federal
CAA
further
provided
that
the
effective
date
for
those
regulations
initially
adopted
under
section
202(
m)
shall
be
the
model
year
1994,
unless
the
Administrator
postpones
application
for
certain
classes
and
categories
of
vehicles
until
the
1996
model
year.
The
Administrator
could
decide
to
delay
implementation
for
reasons
that
the
OBD
requirements
were
infeasible
or
to
be
consistent
with
the
policies
adopted
by
the
ARB.
(
CAA
section
202(
m)(
2).)
Thus,
theoretically,
under
the
provisions
of
CAA
section
202(
m),
the
Administrator
had
effective
authority
to
promulgate
and
implement
OBD
requirements
for
heavy­
duty
vehicles
as
early
as
the
1994
model
year.
Assuming
that
such
requirements
were
adopted
in
June
1992
(
18
months
after
the
enactment
of
the
CAA),
Congress
would
have
provided
less
than
the
requisite
time
allowed
for
implementation
under
CAA
section
202(
a)(
3)(
C).
Accordingly,
it
would
be
appropriate
to
infer
that
Congress
never
intended
that
the
OBD
requirements
be
subject
to
the
lead­
time
provisions
of
section
202(
a)(
3)(
C).

This
is
confirmed
by
the
administrative
actions
of
U.
S.
EPA.
Although
the
Administrator
chose
initially
not
to
adopt
OBD
requirements
for
heavy­
duty
vehicles
(
58
Fed.
Reg.
9485
(
February
19,1993)),
OBD
requirements
were
subsequently
adopted
and
applied
to
medium­
duty
passenger
vehicles
(
a
subclass
of
heavy­
duty
vehicles).
(
64
Fed.
Reg.
23925
(
May
4,
1999).).
Adopted
federal
regulations
provide,
"
Except
as
otherwise
indicated,
the
provisions
of
this
subpart
apply
to
new
2001
and
later
model
year
Otto­
cycle
and
diesel
cycle
light­
­
13­
duty
vehicles,
light­
duty
trucks,
medium­
duty
passenger
vehicles
["
MDPVs"]
.
.
.."
(
40
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
("
CFR"),
subpart,
S
§
86.1801­
01.
Emphasis
added.)
Under
the
Administrator's
adopted
definition,
a
heavy­
duty
vehicle
is
defined
as
"
any
motor
vehicle
rated
at
more
than
8,500
pounds
GVWR
[
gross
vehicle
weight
rating]
or
that
has
a
vehicle
curb
weight
of
more
than
6,000
pounds
or
that
has
a
basic
vehicle
frontal
area
in
excess
of
45
square
feet.
(
40
CFR
1803­
01.)
MDPV
is
defined
as
"
any
heavy­
duty
vehicle
.
.
.
with
a
[
GVWR]
of
less
than
10,000
pounds
that
is
designed
primarily
for
the
transportation
of
persons."
(
Id).
The
specific
OBD
requirements
were
set
forth
in
section
86.1806­
01
of
the
same
regulation
and
provide
that
certain
MDPVs,
as
well
as
light­
duty
vehicles
and
trucks,
are
required
to
meet
the
OBD
standards
set
forth
therein.
An
exception
applied
to
diesel­
fueled,
chassis­
certified
MDPVs
and
enginecertified
diesel
engines
used
in
MDPVs,
but
no
exception
exists
for
Otto­
cycle
MDPVs,
which
are
subject
to
the
requirements
of
section
1806­
01.
(
40
CFR
1806­
01(
a)(
2).
These
vehicles
were
only
subject
to
the
requirements
if
the
exhaust
emission
certification
of
the
applicable
test
group
is
being
carried
across
from
a
California
configuration
to
which
California
OBD
II
requirements
are
applicable.)
The
OBD
provision
does
not
provide
for
a
separate
and
distinct
implementation
date
for
MDPVs
to
meet
the
OBD
requirement.
Accordingly,
under
the
terms
of
section
1806­
01,
the
2001
and
later
model
year
implementation
requirements
would
deem
to
be
applicable
to
the
OBD
requirement.
In
such
a
case,
the
lead­
time
provided
under
the
regulations
would
be
less
than
two
years
from
the
May
4,
1999
initial
promulgation
date
of
the
regulation.

Section
1806­
05,
which
establishes
OBD
requirements
for
heavy­
duty
vehicles
weighing
14,000
pounds
GVWR
or
less,
including
diesel­
powered
MDPVs,
provides
a
similarly
abbreviated
lead­
time
period.
(
68
Fed.
Reg.
35800,
June
17,
2003,
40
CFR
section
1806.05.)
The
regulations
were
adopted
in
June
2003
and
apply
to
2005
and
later
model
year
vehicles.
The
lead­
time
again
is
well
below
the
minimum
four
years
of
lead­
time
required
under
section
202(
a)(
3)(
C).
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
the
only
reasonable
inference
is
that
Congress
did
not
intend
that
the
provisions
of
CAA
section
202(
a)(
3)(
C)
apply
to
OBD
requirements
and
specifically
not
to
California
adopted
OBD
requirements.

Third,
the
commenter's
reference
that
the
EMD
requirements
are
somehow
not
technologically
feasible
and
therefore
inconsistent
with
the
Board's
obligations
under
Health
and
Safety
Code
section
43013(
a)
is
totally
without
merit.
As
set
forth
in
the
Staff
Report
and
in
these
responses,
the
regulation
requires
manufacturers
to
do
no
more
than
they
are
presently
doing
or,
in
the
case
of
particulate
traps,
planning
on
doing
by
2007.
Moreover,
for
those
requirements
manufacturers
currently
may
not
be
meeting
(
e.
g.,
emission­
related
electronic
component
monitoring),
the
regulation
explicitly
requires
monitoring
only
"
where
determined
by
the
engine
manufacturer
to
be
feasible
given
existing
hardware
and
software."
Given
the
above,
the
technologies
are
clearly
feasible
and
will
be
available
for
implementation
by
2007.
­
14­
34.
Comment:
The
CAA
further
states
that
the
new
standards
must
stay
in
effect
for
at
least
three
full
model
years
before
ARB
can
establish
another
standard.
New
heavy­
duty
engine
emission
standards
went
into
effect
in
California
with
the
2004
model
year,
and
newer
emission
standards
are
set
to
go
into
effect
with
the
2007
model
year.
Thus,
ARB
cannot
adopt
the
next
new
round
of
emission
standards
for
heavy­
duty
engines
until
2010
at
the
earliest.
(
EMA)

35.
Comment:
We
understand
and
agree
that
it
is
appropriate
to
consider
a
"
second
generation"
OBD
regulation
for
heavy­
duty
engines
at
some
point
in
the
future.
In
general,
four
years
of
leadtime
are
required
for
a
new
regulation,
especially
where
complex
designs
are
concerned.
Thus,
the
new
regulation
should
be
finalized
no
later
than
2005
as
ARB
has
suggested.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response
to
Comments
34­
35:
Regarding
the
applicability
of
the
stability
requirements
of
CAA
section
202(
a)(
3)
in
the
adoption
of
the
EMD
requirements,
please
see
Agency
Response
to
Comments
31­
33.
To
the
extent
that
the
comment
is
referring
to
the
adoption
of
future
OBD
regulations,
as
stated
in
the
Staff
Report,
staff
has
already
begun
development
of
heavy­
duty
OBD
requirements
analogous
to
the
light­
duty
OBD
II
requirements.
It
is
presently
the
staff's
intent
to
present
this
proposal
to
the
Board
for
consideration
in
2005
with
final
adoption
in
2005.
This
regulation
would
apply
to
2010
and
subsequent
model
year
heavy­
duty
engines.

36.
Comment:
In
order
to
develop
"
second
generation"
OBD
requirements
to
apply
to
the
2010
model
year
engines,
it
is
necessary
to
have
an
understanding
of
the
emission
control
systems
that
are
going
to
be
used
then.
Engine
manufacturers
currently
have
not
finalized
this
and
will
probably
not
do
so
by
2005,
since
they
are
currently
concentrating
on
meeting
the
2007
emission
standards.
Adopting
the
2010
OBD
requirements
in
2005
may
be
unnecessary
and
expensive
and
may
even
create
unintended
barriers
for
the
use
of
promising
emission
control
technologies.
Thus,
ARB
should
delay
adoption
of
this
"
second
generation"
OBD
regulation
until
the
emissions
control
technologies
to
be
used
to
meet
the
2010
standards
are
sufficiently
well
understood.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response:
The
staff
disagrees
with
the
need
for
a
delay
in
development
and
adoption
of
a
second­
generation
system
until
after
the
manufacturers
have
settled
on
their
exact
designs.
Staff,
like
the
manufacturers,
is
aware
of
the
various
technologies
that
currently
exist
and
are
being
pursued
by
the
engine
manufacturers.
Additionally,
the
regulation
will
be
structured
to
account
for
all
known
technologies
as
well
as
include
a
placeholder
for
as
yet
unidentified
technologies.
By
covering
all
of
the
known
technologies,
the
regulation
will
not
be
dependent
on
what
technologies
(
or
more
likely,
combination
of
technologies)
each
individual
engine
manufacturer
ultimately
decides
on.
Further,
by
having
the
monitoring
requirements
clearly
defined
well
in
advance,
manufacturers
have
more
ability
to
consider
the
monitoring
requirements
during
the
development
of
various
technologies
(
instead
of
as
an
afterthought)
and
make
whatever
modifications
are
necessary
during
development
to
make
the
technology
­
15­
amenable
to
monitoring.
This
is
a
much
more
cost­
effective
and
efficient
method
to
get
to
the
final
product
than
developing
the
technology
independent
of
monitoring
and
attempting
to
then
retrofit
the
monitor
to
the
technology.

The
commenter's
suggestion
that
adoption
of
the
requirements
in
2005
may
be
unnecessary
or
expensive
is
unfounded.
Conversely,
not
adopting
the
monitoring
requirements
in
that
time
frame
could
indeed
cause
engine
manufacturers
added
expense
because
they
may
pursue
development
of
alternate
emission
control
technologies
where
they
are
unable
to
meet
the
monitoring
requirements
and
then
be
forced
to
redesign
their
system
to
replace
those
emission
controls
with
ones
that
can
be
monitored.

MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
37.
Comment:
The
EMD
regulation
should
not
require
manufacturers
to
detect
faults
where
there
is
excessive
backpressure
of
the
particulate
matter
(
PM)
trap.
Increased
backpressure
does
not
generally
result
in
increased
emissions;
it
may
even
slightly
increase
the
PM
trapping
efficiency.
We
already
currently
monitor
for
excessive
backpressure
to
ensure
that
commercial
requirements
for
engine
performance
and
fuel
economy
are
met
in­
use
and
warn
drivers
when
backpressure
limits
are
exceeded,
and
we
intend
to
continue
this
practice
in
the
future.
We
object
to
including
this
monitoring
requirement
in
the
EMD
regulation
because
we
want
to
retain
the
flexibility
to
implement
this
monitor
in
a
manner
that
best
meets
the
needs
of
our
customers
without
any
impediments
created
by
regulatory
restraints.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response:
The
staff
did
not
make
the
suggested
changes.
The
current
regulation
provides
an
abundant
level
of
flexibility
in
how
a
monitor
for
excessive
backpressure
is
implemented
and
should
not
constrain
the
manufacturer
in
any
way.
Further,
the
commenter's
assertion
that
excessive
backpressure
is
not,
by
itself,
a
failure
that
immediately
causes
increased
emissions
is
not
substantiated.
Staff's
experience
through
retrofit
applications
is
that
increased
backpressure
can
indeed
cause
immediate
increases
in
emissions
as
the
exhaust
gas
looks
for
alternate
paths
to
escape
including
around
the
edges
of
the
PM­
trap
substrate
and
directly
out
the
exhaust
system.
Excessive
backpressures
also
clearly
indicate
operation
outside
of
the
manufacturer's
design
and
control
and
can
very
often
indicate
an
impending
catastrophic
failure.
Excessive
backpressure
is
typically
caused
by
a
failure
of
the
system
to
regenerate.
Thus,
the
excessive
PM
loading,
when
and
if
regeneration
finally
does
occur,
can
cause
uncontrolled
regeneration,
extreme
temperatures,
and
cracking
or
other
catastrophic
failure
of
the
substrate.

COSTS
38.
Comment:
The
EMD
regulation
would
require
heavy­
duty
engine
manufacturers
to,
for
the
first
time,
meet
mandatory,
comprehensive
engine
diagnostic
requirements.
So
in
order
to
meet
these
requirements,
engine
manufacturers
­
16­
would
have
to
devote
substantial
time
and
resources
to
the
development
of
the
necessary
diagnostic
monitoring
systems
and
software,
so
the
cost
to
comply
with
the
regulation
would
be
significant.
(
EMA)

39.
Comment:
ARB
underestimated
the
costs
of
the
EMD
regulation
in
the
Staff
Report.
We
do
not
expect
the
costs
of
the
EMD
regulation
to
be
excessive
if
the
requirements
for
non­
engine
components
are
removed
from
the
regulation.
Nevertheless,
we
do
not
agree
with
ARB's
assessments
in
the
Staff
Report
that
the
regulation
will
result
in
no
additional
hardware
or
software
costs,
that
there
will
be
no
impact
of
the
profitability
of
heavy­
duty
powertrain
suppliers,
that
there
will
be
no
costs
to
vehicle
manufacturers,
and
that
there
will
be
no
impact
on
new
vehicle
prices.
These
assessments
can
only
be
true
if
the
EMD
regulation
does
not
result
in
any
changes
to
the
monitoring
systems
manufacturers
are
already
using
or
planning
to
use
in
2007.
But
if
this
were
the
case,
then
the
EMD
regulation
serves
no
purpose
and
should
be
abandoned
on
this
basis
alone.
The
EMD
regulation
does
necessitate
additional
hardware
and
new
software,
and
there
will
be
costs
involved
in
the
development
and
validation
of
this
new
hardware
and
software.
In
particular,
significant
effort
and
costs
will
be
needed
in
the
development
of
rationality
checks
for
all
sensory
inputs
to
the
engine
control
system.
All
these
changes
will
result
in
higher
vehicle
prices
and
reduced
profitability.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response
to
Comments
38­
39:
The
staff
disagrees
with
the
commenters.
The
EMD
regulation
does
not
contain
"
comprehensive"
engine
diagnostic
requirements.
The
EMD
regulation
was
developed
to
ensure
that
engine
manufacturers
would
make
very
few
or
no
changes
to
their
existing
monitoring
systems.
Specifically,
the
staff
designed
the
regulation
to
be
based
on
what
engine
manufacturers
are
currently
doing
on
their
engines
in
order
to
minimize
additional
work
engine
manufacturers
must
do
in
order
to
comply
with
the
regulation.
Engine
manufacturers
are
currently
meeting
almost
all
the
requirements.

For
example,
the
requirements
(
as
presented
during
the
45­
Day
Comment
period)
for
the
malfunction
indicator
light
allows
manufacturers
to
use
an
"
existing
warning
light(
s)"
and
to
illuminate
the
light
in
accordance
with
the
engine
manufacturer's
"
existing
practices
for
notifying
vehicle
operators
and
service
technicians."
Moreover,
for
those
requirements
manufacturers
currently
may
not
be
meeting
(
e.
g.,
emission­
related
electronic
component
monitoring),
the
regulation
explicitly
requires
monitoring
only
"
where
determined
by
the
engine
manufacturer
to
be
feasible
given
existing
hardware
and
software."
So
the
commenter's
statement
that
the
EMD
regulation
would
necessitate
additional
hardware
and
new
software
and
his/
her
example
regarding
the
effort
and
costs
needed
to
develop
rationality
checks
for
"
all
sensory
input
to
the
engine
control
system"
is
not
accurate.

Given
the
above,
the
staff's
estimates
for
the
cost
to
comply
with
the
regulation
are
accurate
and
will
not
be
significant.
­
17­
OTHERS
40.
Comment:
The
term
"
emission­
related"
is
used
in
the
regulation,
but
is
not
defined
in
section
(
c).
It
should
be
understood
to
refer
to
factors
that
influence
the
engine
emissions
as
expressed
on
a
grams
per
horsepower­
hour
basis.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response:
The
only
references
to
"
emission­
related"
in
the
regulation
are
in
section
(
e)(
4),
which
are
the
requirements
for
"
emission­
related
electronic
component
monitoring."
Section
(
e)(
4)(
A)
states
that
electronic
components
that
are
"
defined
by
the
engine
manufacturer
as
emission­
related"
are
to
be
monitored
for
malfunctions.
With
this
language,
the
staff
has
placed
the
responsibility
on
engine
manufacturers
to
determine
its
own
definition
of
"
emission­
related."
As
such,
for
the
purposes
of
the
EMD
regulation,
an
engine
manufacturer
is
free
to
use
any
definition
it
wants
including
the
one
proposed
by
the
commenter
if
it
so
wishes.
For
other
(
or
future)
regulations,
staff
does
not
agree
with
the
commenter's
position
that
emission­
related
must
be
defined
as
something
that
influences
engine
emissions
on
a
grams
per
brake
horsepowerhour
basis.
Many
things
can
cause
increased
emissions
of
criteria
pollutants
inuse
without
an
associated
increase
in
grams
per
brake
horsepower­
hour
emissions
including,
as
just
one
example,
gasoline
evaporative
emission
controls.

41.
Comment:
In
section
(
e)(
1)(
B),
the
term
"
fuel
pressure"
should
be
changed
to
"
fuel
injection
pressure"
or
"
fuel
pressures
that
are
proportional
to
the
fuel
injection
pressure"
to
make
it
clear
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
monitor
the
fuel
supply
pressure
or
fuel
pressure
at
points
in
the
fuel
system
that
are
unrelated
to
the
injection
pressure.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response:
The
staff
did
not
make
the
proposed
change.
In
the
context
of
this
regulation,
engine
manufacturers
are
only
responsible
for
monitoring
fuel
pressure
in
cases
where
the
engine
has
feedback
control
of
the
pressure.
In
that
regard,
manufacturers
are
indeed
responsible
for
monitoring
all
portions
of
the
fuel
system
that
have
feedback
control
of
pressure,
regardless
of
whether
they
are
related
to
injection
pressure.
If
the
manufacturer
has
gone
to
the
effort
and
added
expense
of
installing
a
feedback
control
system
on
a
portion
of
the
fuel
system,
it
is
very
likely
that
such
control
is
important
for
proper
emission
performance.

42.
Comment:
Under
section
(
e)(
3),
the
engine
manufacturer
should
be
responsible
for
PM
trap
monitoring
only
if
the
PM
filter
is
part
of
the
engine
manufacturer's
certified
engine
system.
They
should
not
be
responsible
if
the
PM
filter
is
retrofitted
to
the
engine
or
supplied
by
an
independent
third
party.
(
DDC)

Agency
Response:
The
EMD
regulation
only
applies
to
engines
certified
and
introduced
into
commerce
as
new
engines
and
engine
manufacturer
is
defined
­
18­
as
the
holder
of
the
Executive
Order
for
the
engine
family.
Accordingly,
the
EMD
requirements
do
not
apply
to
PM
filters
that
are
retrofitted
to
the
engine
after
certification
and
introduction
into
commerce.
Any
PM
filter
used
by
the
engine
manufacturer
to
meet
the
emission
standards
and
included
as
part
of
the
certification
to
receive
the
Executive
Order
for
the
engine
family
would,
however,
be
subject
to
monitoring
regardless
of
the
manufacturer
or
supplier
of
the
PM
filter.