Loading (50 kb)...'

(continued)
(5.1.3) If the MIL does not illuminate when the system or component is set at its limit(s), the criteria limit or the OBD system is not acceptable.
(A) Except for testing of the catalyst or PM filter system, if the MIL first illuminates after emissions exceed the applicable malfunction criteria specified in sections (e) through (g), the test engine shall be retested with the tested system or component adjusted so that the MIL will illuminate before emissions exceed the applicable malfunction criteria specified in sections (e) through (g). If the component cannot be adjusted to meet this criterion because a default fuel or emission control strategy is used when a malfunction is detected (e.g., open loop fuel control used after an oxygen sensor malfunction is determined), the test engine shall be retested with the component adjusted to the worst acceptable limit (i.e., the applicable monitor indicates the component is performing at or slightly better than the malfunction criteria). When tested with the component adjusted to the worst acceptable limit, the MIL must not illuminate during the test and the engine emissions must be below the applicable malfunction criteria specified in sections (e) through (g).
(B) In testing the catalyst or PM filter system, if the MIL first illuminates after emissions exceed the applicable emission threshold(s) specified in sections (e) and (f), the tested engine shall be retested with a less deteriorated catalyst/PM filter system (i.e., more of the applicable engine out pollutants are converted or trapped). For the OBD system to be approved, testing shall be continued until either of the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) The MIL is illuminated and emissions do not exceed the thresholds specified in sections (e) or (f); or
(ii) The manufacturer demonstrates that the MIL illuminates within the upper and lower limits of the threshold identified below. The manufacturer shall demonstrate acceptable limits by continuing testing until the test results show:
a. The MIL is illuminated and emissions exceed the thresholds specified in sections (e) or (f) by 10 percent or less of the applicable standard (e.g., emissions are less than 1.85 times the applicable standard for a malfunction criterion of 1.75 times the standard); and
b. The MIL is not illuminated and emissions are below the thresholds specified in sections (e) or (f) by no more than 20 percent of the standard (e.g., emissions are between 1.55 and 1.75 times the applicable standard for a malfunction criterion of 1.75 times the standard).
(5.1.4) If an OBD system is determined unacceptable by the above criteria, the manufacturer may recalibrate and retest the system on the same test engine. In such a case, the manufacturer must confirm, by retesting, that all systems and components that were tested prior to recalibration and are affected by the recalibration function properly under the OBD system as recalibrated.
(5.2) OBD child ratings subject to sections (d)(7.1.2) or (d)(7.2.3) (i.e., extrapolated OBD) shall be evaluated according to the following protocol.
(5.2.1) For all tests conducted under section (i), the MIL shall be illuminated upon detection of the tested system or component malfunction before the end of the first engine start portion of the exhaust test of the complete applicable test in accordance with the malfunction criteria established by the manufacturer under sections (d)(7.1.2) and (d)(7.2.3).
(5.2.2) Except for testing of the catalyst or PM filter system, if the MIL first illuminates after the tested component or system significantly exceeds the applicable malfunction criteria established by the manufacturer, the test engine shall be retested with the tested system or component adjusted so that the MIL will illuminate at the applicable malfunction criteria established by the manufacturer.
(5.2.3) In testing the catalyst or PM filter system, if the MIL first illuminates after the tested component or system significantly exceeds the applicable malfunction criteria established by the manufacturer, the tested engine shall be retested with a less deteriorated catalyst/PM filter system (i.e., more of the applicable engine out pollutants are converted or trapped). For the OBD system to be approved, testing shall be continued until either of the following conditions are satisfied:
(A) The MIL is illuminated and the tested component or system is at the applicable malfunction criteria established by the manufacturer; or
(B) The manufacturer demonstrates that the MIL illuminates within the upper and lower limits of the threshold identified below. The manufacturer shall demonstrate acceptable limits by continuing testing until the test results show:
(i) The MIL is illuminated and monitoring results indicate the tested component or system exceeds the malfunction criteria established by the manufacturer by 10 percent or less of the monitored parameter; and
(ii) The MIL is not illuminated and monitoring results indicate the tested component or system is below the malfunction criteria established by the manufacturer by 10 percent or less of the monitored parameter.
(6) Confirmatory Testing:
(6.1) The ARB may perform confirmatory testing to verify the emission test data submitted by the manufacturer under the requirements of section (i) comply with the requirements of section (i) and the malfunction criteria identified in sections (e) through (g). This confirmatory testing is limited to the engine rating represented by the demonstration engine(s).
(6.2) The ARB or its designee may install appropriately deteriorated or malfunctioning components (or simulate a deteriorated or malfunctioning component) in an otherwise properly functioning test engine of an engine rating represented by the demonstration test engine(s) in order to test any of the components or systems required to be tested in section (i). Upon request by the Executive Officer, the manufacturer shall make available an engine and all test equipment (e.g., malfunction simulators, deteriorated components) necessary to duplicate the manufacturer's testing. The Executive Officer shall make the request within six months of reviewing and approving the demonstration test engine data submitted by the manufacturer for the specific engine rating.
(j) Certification Documentation
(1) When submitting an application for certification of an engine, the manufacturer shall submit the following documentation. If any of the items listed below are standardized for all of a manufacturer's engines, the manufacturer may, for each model year, submit one set of documents covering the standardized items for all of its engines.
(1.1) For the required documentation not standardized across all engines, the manufacturer may propose to the Executive Officer that it be allowed to submit documentation for certification from one engine that is representative of other engines. The Executive Officer shall approve the engine as representative if the engine possesses the most stringent emission standards and OBD monitoring requirements and covers all of the emission control devices for the engines covered by the submitted documentation. Upon approval, this grouping shall be known as an "OBD certification documentation group".
(1.2) With Executive Officer approval, one or more of the documentation requirements of section (j) may be waived or modified if the information required would be redundant or unnecessarily burdensome to generate.
(1.3) To the extent possible, the certification documentation shall use SAE J1930 or J2403 terms, abbreviations, and acronyms.
(2) The following information shall be submitted as part of the certification application. Except as provided below for demonstration data, the Executive Officer will not issue an Executive Order certifying the covered engines without the information having been provided. The information must include:
(2.1) A description of the functional operation of the OBD system including a complete written description for each monitoring strategy that outlines every step in the decision-making process of the monitor. Algorithms, diagrams, samples of data, and/or other graphical representations of the monitoring strategy shall be included where necessary to adequately describe the information.
(2.2) A table, in the standardized format detailed in Attachment A of ARB Mail-Out #95-20, May 22, 1995, incorporated by reference.
(2.2.1) The table must include the following information for each monitored component or system (either computer-sensed or -controlled) of the emission control system:
(A) Corresponding fault code
(B) Monitoring method or procedure for malfunction detection
(C) Primary malfunction detection parameter and its type of output signal
(D) Fault criteria limits used to evaluate output signal of primary parameter
(E) Other monitored secondary parameters and conditions (in engineering units) necessary for malfunction detection
(F) Monitoring time length and frequency of checks
(G) Criteria for storing fault code
(H) Criteria for illuminating malfunction indicator light
(I) Criteria used for determining out-of-range values and input component rationality checks
(2.2.2) Wherever possible, the table shall use the following engineering units:
(A) Degrees Celsius ( [FNo] C) for all temperature criteria
(B) KiloPascals (KPa) for all pressure criteria related to manifold or atmospheric pressure
(C) Grams (g) for all intake air mass criteria
(D) Pascals (Pa) for all pressure criteria related to evaporative system vapor pressure
(E) Miles per hour (mph) for all vehicle speed criteria
(F) Relative percent (%) for all relative throttle position criteria (as defined in SAE J1979/J1939)
(G) Voltage (V) for all absolute throttle position criteria (as defined in SAE J1979/J1939)
(H) Per crankshaft revolution (/rev) for all changes per ignition event based criteria (e.g., g/rev instead of g/stroke or g/firing)
(I) Per second (/sec) for all changes per time based criteria (e.g., g/sec)
(J) Percent of nominal tank volume (%) for all fuel tank level criteria
(2.3) A logic flowchart describing the step-by-step evaluation of the enable criteria and malfunction criteria for each monitored emission-related component or system.
(2.4) Emission test data, a description of the testing sequence (e.g., the number and types of preconditioning cycles), approximate time (in seconds) of MIL illumination during the test, fault code(s) and freeze frame information stored at the time of detection, corresponding test results (e.g. SAE J1979 Mode/Service $06, SAE J1939 Diagnostic Message 8 (DM8)) stored during the test, and a description of the modified or deteriorated components used for fault simulation with respect to the demonstration tests specified in section (i). The freeze frame data are not required for engines subject to sections (d)(7.1.2) or (d)(7.2.3). The Executive Officer may approve conditional certification of an engine prior to the submittal of this data for ARB review and approval. Factors to be considered by the Executive Officer in approving the late submission of information identified in section (j)(2.4) shall include the reason for the delay in the data collection, the length of time until data will be available, and the demonstrated previous success of the manufacturer in submitting the data prior to certification.
(2.5) For gasoline engines, data supporting the misfire monitor, including:
(2.5.1) The established percentage of misfire that can be tolerated without damaging the catalyst over the full range of engine speed and load conditions.
(2.5.2) Data demonstrating the probability of detection of misfire events of the misfire monitoring system over the full engine speed and load operating range for the following misfire patterns: random cylinders misfiring at the malfunction criteria established in section (f)(2.2.2), one cylinder continuously misfiring, and paired cylinders continuously misfiring.
(2.5.3) Data identifying all disablement of misfire monitoring that occurs during the FTP. For every disablement that occurs during the cycles, the data should identify: when the disablement occurred relative to the driver's trace, the number of engine revolutions that each disablement was present for, and which disable condition documented in the certification application caused the disablement.
(2.5.4) Manufacturers are not required to use the durability demonstration engine to collect the misfire data for sections (j)(2.5.1) through (2.5.3).
(2.6) Data supporting the limit for the time between engine starting and attaining the designated heating temperature for after-start heated catalyst systems.
(2.7) Data supporting the criteria used to detect a malfunction of the fuel system, EGR system, boost pressure control system, catalyst, NOx adsorber, PM filter, cold start emission reduction strategy, secondary air, evaporative system, VVT system, exhaust gas sensors, and other emission controls which causes emissions to exceed the applicable malfunction criteria specified in sections (e), (f), and (g). For diesel engine monitors in sections (e) and (g) that are required to indicate a malfunction before emissions exceed an emission threshold based on any applicable standard (e.g., 1.5 times any of the applicable standards), the test cycle and standard determined by the manufacturer to be the most stringent for each applicable monitor in accordance with section (d)(6.1).
(2.8) A listing of all electronic powertrain input and output signals (including those not monitored by the OBD system) that identifies which signals are monitored by the OBD system. For input and output signals that are monitored as comprehensive components, the listing shall also identify the specific fault code for each malfunction criteria (e.g., out of range low, out of range high, open circuit, rationality low, rationality high).
(2.9) A written description of all parameters and conditions necessary to begin closed-loop/feedback control of emission control systems (e.g., fuel system, boost pressure, EGR flow, SCR reductant delivery, PM filter regeneration, fuel system pressure).
(2.10) A written identification of the communication protocol utilized by each engine for communication with an SAE J1978/J1939 scan tool.
(2.11) A pictorial representation or written description of the diagnostic connector location including any covers or labels.
(2.12) A written description of the method used by the manufacturer to meet the requirements of section (g)(2) for CV system monitoring including diagrams or pictures of valve and/or hose connections.
(2.13) A written description of each AECD utilized by the manufacturer including the sensor signals and/or calculated values used to invoke each AECD, the engineering data and/or analysis demonstrating the need for such an AECD, the actions taken when each AECD is activated, the expected in-use frequency of operation of each AECD, and the expected emission impact from each AECD activation.
(2.14) A written description of each NOx and PM NTE deficiency and emission carve-out utilized by the manufacturer including the sensor signals and/or calculated values used to invoke each NTE deficiency or carve-out, the engineering data and/or analysis demonstrating the need for such an NTE deficiency or carve-out, the actions taken when each NTE deficiency or carve-out is activated, the expected in-use frequency of operation of each NTE deficiency or carve-out, and the expected emission impact from each NTE deficiency or carve-out activation.
(2.15) Build specifications provided to engine purchasers or chassis manufacturers detailing all specifications or limitations imposed on the engine purchaser relevant to OBD requirements or emission compliance (e.g., allowable MIL locations, connector location specifications, cooling system heat rejection rates). A description of the method or copies of agreements used to ensure engine purchasers or chassis manufacturers will comply with the OBD and emission relevant build specifications (e.g., signed agreements, required audit/evaluation procedures).
(2.16) Any other information determined by the Executive Officer to be necessary to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this regulation.
(k) Deficiencies
(1) The Executive Officer, upon receipt of an application from the manufacturer, may certify OBD systems installed on engines even though the systems do not comply with one or more of the requirements of title 13, CCR section 1971.1. In granting the certification, the Executive Officer shall consider the following factors: the extent to which the requirements of section 1971.1 are satisfied overall based on a review of the engine applications in question, the relative performance of the resultant OBD system compared to systems fully compliant with the requirements of section 1971.1, and a demonstrated good-faith effort on the part of the manufacturer to: (1) meet the requirements in full by evaluating and considering the best available monitoring technology; and (2) come into compliance as expeditiously as possible.
(2) For 2013 and subsequent model year engines, manufacturers of OBD systems for which deficiencies have been granted are subject to fines pursuant to section 43016 of the California Health and Safety Code. The specified fines apply to: (1) the third and subsequently identified deficiency(ies), ordered according to section (k)(3), and (2) a monitoring system deficiency where a required monitoring strategy is completely absent from the OBD system.
(3) The fines for engines specified in section (k)(2) above are in the amount of $50 per deficiency per engine for non-compliance with any of the monitoring requirements specified in sections (e), (f), and (g)(4), and $25 per deficiency per engine for non-compliance with any other requirement of section 1971, 1. In determining the identified order of deficiencies, deficiencies subject to a $50 fine are identified first. Total fines per engine under section (k) may not exceed $500 per engine and are payable to the State Treasurer for deposit in the Air Pollution Control Fund.
(4) Manufacturers must re-apply for Executive Officer approval of a deficiency each model year. In considering the request to carry-over a deficiency, the Executive Officer shall consider the factors identified in section (k)(1) including the manufacturer's progress towards correcting the deficiency. The Executive Officer may not allow manufacturers to carry over monitoring system deficiencies for more than two model years unless it can be demonstrated that substantial engine hardware modifications and additional lead time beyond two years would be necessary to correct the deficiency, in which case the Executive Officer shall allow the deficiency to be carried over for three model years.
(5) Except as allowed in section (k)(6), deficiencies may not be retroactively granted after certification.
(6) Request for retroactive deficiencies
(6.1) During the first 6 months after commencement of normal production, manufacturers may request that the Executive Officer grant a deficiency and amend an engine's certification to conform to the granting of the deficiencies for each aspect of the monitoring system: (a) identified by the manufacturer (during testing required by section (l)(2) or any other testing) to be functioning different than the certified system or otherwise not meeting the requirements of any aspect of section 1971.1; and (b) reported to the Executive Officer. If the Executive Officer grants the deficiencies and amended certification, their approval would be retroactive to the start of production.
(6.2) Executive Officer approval of the request for a retroactive deficiency shall be granted provided that the conditions necessary for a pre-certification deficiency determination are satisfied (see section (k)(1)) and the manufacturer could not have reasonably anticipated the identified problem before commencement of production.
(6.3) In granting the amended certification, the Executive Officer shall include any approved post-production deficiencies together with all previously approved deficiencies in computing fines in accordance with section (k)(2).
(l) Production Engine/Vehicle Evaluation Testing
(1) Verification of Standardized Requirements.
(1.1) Requirement: Manufacturers shall perform testing to verify that 2013 and subsequent model year production vehicles meet the requirements of section (h)(3) and (h)(4) relevant to proper communication of required emission-related messages to an SAE J1978/J1939 scan tool.
(1.2) Selection of Test Vehicles:
(1.2.1) Engine manufacturers shall perform this testing every model year on ten unique production vehicles (i.e., engine rating and chassis application combination) per engine family. If there are less than ten unique production vehicles for a certain engine family, the manufacturer shall test each unique production vehicle in that engine family. Manufacturers shall perform this testing within either three months of the start of engine production or one month of the start of vehicle production, whichever is later. Manufacturers may request Executive Officer approval to group multiple production vehicles together and test one representative vehicle per group. The Executive Officer shall approve the request upon finding that the software and hardware designed to comply with the standardization requirements of section (h) (e.g., communication protocol message timing, number of supported data stream parameters, engine and vehicle communication network architecture) in the representative vehicle are identical to all others in the group and that any differences in the production vehicles are not relevant with respect to meeting the criteria in section (l)(1.4).
(1.2.2) For 2016 and subsequent model year engines, the Executive Officer shall reduce the maximum required number of vehicles to be tested from ten per engine family to five per engine family for a manufacturer based on the demonstrated previous success of the manufacturer to meet the requirements of section (l)(1). For purposes of this requirement, a manufacturer shall be determined to be successful in meeting the requirements of section (l)(1) if zero vehicles fail the testing required by section (l)(1) for two consecutive years.
(1.2.3) For 2019 and subsequent model year engines, the Executive Officer shall further reduce the maximum required number of vehicles to be tested to three per engine family for a manufacturer based on the demonstrated previous success of the manufacturer to meet the requirements of section (l)(1). For purposes of this requirement, a manufacturer shall be determined to be successful in meeting the requirements of section (l)(1) if zero vehicles fail the testing required by section (l)(1) for three consecutive years.
(1.2.4) The Executive Officer may waive the requirement for submittal of data from one or more of the production vehicles if data have been previously submitted for all of the production vehicles. Manufacturers may request Executive Officer approval to carry over data collected in previous model years. The Executive Officer shall approve the request upon finding that the software and hardware designed to comply with the standardization requirements of section (h) are identical to the previous model year and no other hardware or software changes that affect compliance with the standardization requirements have been made.
(1.3) Test Equipment: For the testing required in section (l)(1), manufacturers shall utilize an off-board device to conduct the testing. Prior to conducting testing, manufacturers are required to request and receive Executive Officer approval of the off-board device that the manufacturer will use to perform the testing. The Executive Officer shall approve the request upon determining that the manufacturer has submitted data, specifications, and/or engineering analysis that demonstrate that the off-board device is able to verify that vehicles tested are able to perform all of the required functions in section (l)(1.4) with any other off-board device designed and built in accordance with the SAE J1978/J1939 generic scan tool specifications.
(1.4) Required Testing:
(1.4.1) The testing shall verify that communication can be properly established between all emission-related on-board computers and any SAE J1978/J1939 scan tool designed to adhere strictly to the communication protocols allowed in section (h)(3);
(1.4.2) The testing shall verify that all emission-related information is properly communicated between all emission-related on-board computers and any SAE J1978/J1939 scan tool in accordance with the requirements of section (h) and the applicable ISO and SAE specifications including specifications for physical layer, network layer, message structure, and message content.
(1.4.3) The testing shall further verify that the following information can be properly communicated to any SAE J1978/J1939 scan tool:
(A) The current readiness status from all on-board computers required to support readiness status in accordance with SAE J1979/J1939-73 and section (h)(4.1) in the key on, engine off position and while the engine is running;
(B) The MIL command status while the MIL is commanded off and while the MIL is commanded on in accordance with SAE J1979/J1939 and section (h)(4.2) in the key on, engine off position and while the engine is running, and in accordance with SAE J1979/J1939 and sections (d)(2.1.2) during the MIL functional check and, if applicable, (h)(4.1.3) during the MIL readiness status check while the engine is off;
(C) All data stream parameters required in section (h)(4.2) in accordance with SAE J1979/J1939 including, if applicable, the proper identification of each data stream parameter as supported in SAE J1979 (e.g., Mode/Service $01, PID $00);
(D) The CAL ID, CVN, and VIN in accordance with SAE J1979/J1939 and sections (h)(4.6) through (4.8);
(E) An emission-related fault code (permanent, confirmed, pending, MIL-on, and previously MIL-on) in accordance with SAE J1979/J1939-73 (including correctly indicating the number of stored fault codes (e.g., Mode/Service $01, PID $01, Data A for SAE J1979)) and section (h)(4.4);
(1.4.4) The testing shall also verify that the on-board computer(s) can properly respond to any SAE J1978/J1939 scan tool request to clear emission-related fault codes and reset readiness status in accordance with section (h)(4.9).
(1.5) Reporting of Results:
(1.5.1) The manufacturer shall submit to the Executive Officer the following, based on the results of testing:
(A) If a variant meets all the requirements of section (l)(1.4), a statement specifying that the variant passed all the tests, or
(B) If any variant does not meet the requirements of section (l)(1.4), a written report to the Executive Officer for approval within one month of testing the specific variant. The written report shall include the problem(s) identified and the manufacturer's proposed corrective action (if any) to remedy the problem(s). Factors to be considered by the Executive Officer in approving the proposed corrective action shall include the severity of the problem(s), the ability of the vehicle to be tested in a California inspection program (e.g., roadside inspection, fleet self-inspection program), the ability of service technicians to access the required diagnostic information, the impact on equipment and tool manufacturers, and the amount of time prior to implementation of the proposed corrective action.
(1.5.2) Upon request of the Executive Officer, a manufacturer shall submit a report of the results of any testing conducted pursuant to section (l)(1) to the Executive Officer for review.
(1.5.3) In accordance with section (k)(6), manufacturers may request Executive Officer approval for a retroactive deficiency to be granted for items identified during this testing.
(1.6) Alternative Testing Protocols. Manufacturers may request Executive Officer approval to use other testing protocols. The Executive Officer shall approve the protocol if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the alternate testing methods and equipment provide an equivalent level of verification of compliance with the standardized requirements to the requirements of section (l)(1).
(2) Verification of Monitoring Requirements.
(2.1) Within either the first six months of the start of engine production or the first three months of the start of vehicle production, whichever is later, manufacturers shall conduct a complete evaluation of the OBD system of one or more production vehicles (test vehicles) and submit the results of the evaluation to the Executive Officer.
(2.2) Selection of test vehicles:
(2.2.1) For each engine selected for monitoring system demonstration in section (j), the manufacturer shall evaluate one production vehicle equipped with an engine from the same engine family and rating as the demonstration engine. The Executive Officer shall select the specific production vehicle(s) to be tested.
(2.2.2) A manufacturer required to test more than one test vehicle may test an engine in lieu of a vehicle for all but one of the required test vehicles.
(2.2.3) The Executive Officer may waive the requirements for submittal of evaluation results from one or more of the test vehicles if data have been previously submitted for all of the engine ratings and variants.
(2.3) Evaluation requirements:
(2.3.1) The evaluation shall demonstrate the ability of the OBD system on the selected production vehicle to detect a malfunction, illuminate the MIL, and, where applicable, store an appropriate fault code readable by a scan tool conforming to SAE J1978/J1939 when a malfunction is present and the monitoring conditions have been satisfied for each individual diagnostic required by title 13, CCR section 1971.1.
(2.3.2) The evaluation shall verify that malfunctions detected by non-MIL illuminating diagnostics of components used to enable any other OBD system diagnostic (e.g., fuel level sensor) will not inhibit the ability of other OBD system diagnostics to properly detect malfunctions.
(2.3.3) The evaluation shall verify that the software used to track the numerator and denominator for purposes of determining in-use monitoring frequency correctly increments as required in section (d)(4).
(2.3.4) Malfunctions may be mechanically implanted or electronically simulated but internal on-board computer hardware or software changes may not be used to simulate malfunctions. For monitors that are required to indicate a malfunction before emissions exceed an emission threshold based on any applicable standard (e.g., 2.0 times any of the applicable standards), manufacturers are not required to use malfunctioning components/systems set exactly at their malfunction criteria limits. Emission testing to confirm that the malfunction is detected before the appropriate emission standards are exceeded is not required.
(2.3.5) Manufacturers shall submit a proposed test plan for Executive Officer approval prior to evaluation testing being performed. The test plan shall identify the method used to induce a malfunction for each diagnostic. If the Executive Officer determines that the requirements of section (l)(2) are satisfied, the proposed test plan shall be approved.
(2.3.6) Subject to Executive Officer approval, manufacturers may omit demonstration of specific diagnostics. The Executive Officer shall approve a manufacturer's request if the demonstration cannot be reasonably performed without causing physical damage to the vehicle (e.g., on-board computer internal circuit faults).
(2.3.7) For evaluation of test vehicles selected in accordance with section (l)(2.2), manufacturers are not required to demonstrate diagnostics that were previously demonstrated prior to certification as required in section (i).
(2.4) Manufacturers shall submit a report of the results of all testing conducted pursuant to section (l)(2) to the Executive Officer for review. This report shall identify the method used to induce a malfunction in each diagnostic, the MIL illumination status, and the fault code(s) stored.
(2.5) In accordance with section (k)(6), manufacturers may request Executive Officer approval for a retroactive deficiency to be granted for items identified during this testing.
(3) Verification and Reporting of In-use Monitoring Performance.
(3.1) Manufacturers are required to collect and report in-use monitoring performance data representative of production vehicles (i.e., engine rating and chassis application combination). Manufacturers shall collect and report the data to the ARB within twelve months after the production vehicles were first introduced into commerce.
(3.2) Manufacturers shall separate production vehicles into monitoring performance groups, as defined by sections (l)(3.2.1) and (3.2.2) below, and submit data representative of each group:
(3.2.1) Emission architecture. Engines shall be separated by emission architecture. All engines that use the same or similar emission control architecture and monitoring system shall be in the same emission architecture category.
(3.2.2) Monitoring performance group. Within an emission architecture category, engines shall be separated by vehicle application. The separate monitoring performance groups shall be based on three classifications: engines intended primarily for line-haul chassis applications, engines intended primarily for urban delivery chassis applications, and all other engines.
(3.3) Manufacturers may request Executive Officer approval to use an alternate grouping method to collect representative data. Executive Officer approval shall be granted upon determining that the proposed groupings include production vehicles using similar emission controls, OBD strategies, monitoring condition calibrations, and vehicle application driving/usage patterns such that they are expected to have similar in-use monitoring performance. If approved by the Executive Officer, the manufacturer may submit one set of data for each of the approved groupings.
(3.4) For each group, the data must include all of the in-use performance tracking data reported through SAE J1979/J1939 (i.e., all numerators, denominators, the general denominator, and the ignition cycle counter), the date the data were collected, the odometer reading, the VIN, and the ECM software calibration identification number.
(3.5) Manufacturers shall submit a plan to the Executive Officer for review and approval that details the types of production vehicles in each group, the number of vehicles per group to be sampled, the sampling method, the time line to collect the data, and the reporting format. The Executive Officer shall approve the plan upon determining that it provides for effective collection of data from a sample of vehicles that, at a minimum, is fifteen vehicles per group, will likely result in the collection and submittal of data within the required time frame, will generate data that are representative of California drivers and temperatures, and does not, by design, exclude or include specific vehicles in an attempt to collect data only from vehicles with the highest in-use performance ratios.
(3.6) Upon request of the manufacturer, the Executive Officer may for good cause extend the twelve month time requirement set forth in section (l)(3.1) up to a maximum of eighteen months. In granting additional time, the Executive Officer shall consider, among other things, information submitted by the manufacturer to justify the delay, sales volume of the group(s), and the sampling mechanism utilized by the manufacturer to procure vehicles for data collection. If an extension beyond twelve months is granted, the manufacturer shall additionally be required to submit an interim report within twelve months for data collected up to the time of the interim report.
(m) Intermediate In-Use Compliance Standards
(1) For 2010 through 2012 model year engines:
(1.1) For monitors that are required to indicate a malfunction before emissions exceed a certain emission threshold (e.g., 2.5 times any of the applicable standards):
(1.1.1) On the OBD parent rating (i.e., the engine rating subject to the "full OBD" requirement under section (d)(7.1.1)), the Executive Officer may not consider an OBD system noncompliant unless a representative sample indicates emissions exceed 2.0 times the malfunction criteria (e.g., 5.0 times the standard if the malfunction criterion is 2.5 times the standard) without MIL illumination on either of the applicable standards (i.e., FTP or SET).
(1.1.2) On the OBD child ratings (i.e., the engine ratings subject to the "extrapolated OBD" requirement under section (d)(7.1.2)), the Executive Officer may not consider an OBD system noncompliant based on emission levels.
(1.2) The Executive Officer shall use only the test cycle and standard determined and identified by the manufacturer at the time of certification in accordance with section (d)(6.1) as the most stringent for purposes of determining OBD system noncompliance in section (m)(1.1.1).
(2) For 2013 through 2015 model year engines:
(2.1) For monitors that are required to indicate a malfunction before emissions exceed a certain emission threshold (e.g., 2.0 times any of the applicable standards):
(2.1.1) On all OBD parent ratings and OBD child ratings subject to section (d)(7.2.2), the Executive Officer may not consider an OBD system noncompliant unless a representative sample indicates emissions exceed 2.0 times the malfunction criteria (e.g., 4.0 times the standard if the malfunction criterion is 2.0 times the standard) without MIL illumination on either of the applicable standards (i.e., FTP or SET).
(2.1.2) On all other engine ratings, the Executive Officer may not consider an OBD system noncompliant based on emission levels.
(2.2) The Executive Officer shall use only the test cycle and standard determined and identified by the manufacturer at the time of certification in accordance with section (d)(6.1) as the most stringent for purposes of determining OBD system noncompliance in section (m)(2.1.1).
(2.3) For monitors subject to meeting the minimum in-use monitor performance ratio of 0.100 in section (d)(3.2.2), the Executive Officer may not consider an OBD system noncompliant unless a representative sample indicates the in-use ratio is below 0.050.
(3) For 2016 through 2019 model year engines:
(3.1) For monitors of the PM filter subject to the malfunction criteria of section (e)(8.2.1)(B), the Executive Officer may not consider the PM filter monitor noncompliant with the malfunction threshold of section (e)(8.2.1)(B) unless a representative sample indicates emissions exceed 2.0 times the malfunction criteria (e.g., PM emission level of 0.06 g/bhp-hr if the malfunction criterion is 0.03 g/bhp-hr) without MIL illumination on either of the applicable standards (i.e., FTP or SET).
(3.2) For all engine ratings subject to section (d)(7.2.3) for extrapolated OBD in 2013 through 2015, the Executive Officer may not consider an OBD system noncompliant unless a representative sample indicates emissions exceed 2.0 times the malfunction criteria (e.g., 4.0 times the standard if the malfunction criterion is 2.0 times the standard) without MIL illumination on either of the applicable standards (i.e., FTP or SET),
(4) For 2010 and subsequent model year engines, the Executive Officer may not consider an OBD system noncompliant solely due to a failure or deterioration mode of a monitored component or system that could not have been reasonably foreseen to occur by the manufacturer.
_________
[FN1] Unless otherwise noted, all section references refer to section 1971.1 of title 13, CCR.


Note: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 43000.5, 43013, 43018, 43100, 43101, 43104, 43105, 43105.5 and 43106, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 39002, 39003, 39010-39060, 39515, 39600-39601, 43000, 43000.5, 43004, 43006, 43013, 43016, 43018, 43100, 43101, 43102, 43104, 43105, 43105.5, 43106, 43150-43156, 43204, 43211 and 43212, Health and Safety Code.



s 1975. Standards and Test Procedures for Crankcase Emissions.
Standards for crankcase emissions are those set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 85, Subparts A, C, and H, as it existed on June 20, 1973. These standards are enforced in California pursuant to Section 43008 of the Health and Safety Code.


Note: Authority cited: Sections 39600 and 39601, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 39002, 39003, 43000, 43008, 43013, 43600 and 43651, Health and Safety Code.


s 1976. Standards and Test Procedures for Motor Vehicle Fuel Evaporative Emissions.
(a) Fuel evaporative emissions from 1970 through 1977 model passenger cars and light-duty trucks are set forth in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 86, Subparts A and C, as it existed on June 20, 1973. These standards are enforced in California pursuant to section 43008 of the Health and Safety Code.
(b)(1) Evaporative emissions for 1978 and subsequent model gasoline-fueled, 1983 and subsequent model liquified petroleum gas-fueled, and 1993 and subsequent model alcohol-fueled motor vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles subject to exhaust emission standards under this article, except petroleum-fueled diesel vehicles, compressed natural gas-fueled vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles that have sealed fuel systems which can be demonstrated to have no evaporative emissions, and motorcycles, shall not exceed the following standards.
(A) For vehicles identified below, tested in accordance with the test procedure based on the Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determination as set forth in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, sections 86.130-78 through 86.143- 90 as they existed July 1, 1989, the evaporative emission standards are:
Hydrocarbons [FN1]
Diurnal + Hot Soak (grams/test)
Vehicle Type Model Year 50K miles
Passenger cars 1978 and 1979 6.0
Light-duty trucks 6.0
Medium-duty vehicles 6.0
Heavy-duty vehicles 6.0
Passenger cars 1980-1994 [FN2] 2.0
Light-duty trucks 2.0
Medium-duty vehicles 2.0
Heavy-duty vehicles 2.0

[FN1] Organic Material Hydrocarbon Equivalent, for alcohol-fueled vehicles.
[FN2] Other than hybrid electric vehicles.
(B) For the vehicles identified below, tested in accordance with the test procedure which includes the running loss test, the hot soak test, and the 72 hour diurnal test, the evaporative emission standards are:
Hydrocarbons [FN1]
Three-Day Running Loss
Diurnal +
Hot Soak (grams/mile)
(grams/test)
Vehicle Type Model Useful Life Useful Life
Year [FN2] [FN2]
Passenger cars 1995 2.0 0.05
through
2005
[FN3]
Light-duty trucks 2.0 0.05
Medium-duty vehicles
(6,001-8,500 lbs. GVWR)
with fuel tanks < 30 gallons 2.0 0.05
with fuel tanks> 30 gallons 2.5 0.05
(8,501-14,000 lbs. GVWR)<>4 3.0 0.05
Heavy-duty vehicles 2.0 0.05
(over 14,000 lbs. GVWR)
Hybrid electric passenger cars 1993 2.0 0.05
through
2005
[FN5]
Hybrid electric light-duty trucks 2.0 0.05
Hybrid electric medium-duty vehicles 2.0 0.05

[FN1] Organic Material Hydrocarbon Equivalent, for alcohol-fueled vehicles.
[FN2] For purposes of this paragraph, "useful life" shall have the same meaning as provided in section 2112, Title 13, California Code of Regulations. Approval of vehicles which are not exhaust emission tested using a chassis dynamometer pursuant to section 1960.1 or 1961, Title 13, California Code of Regulations shall be based on an engineering evaluation of the system and data submitted by the applicant.
[FN3] The running loss and useful life three-day diurnal plus hot soak evaporative emission standards (hereinafter "running loss and useful life standards") shall be phased in beginning with the 1995 model year. Each manufacturer, except ultra-small volume and small volume manufacturers, shall certify the specified percent (a) of passenger cars and (b) of light-duty trucks, medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles to the running loss and useful life standards according to the following schedule:
Minimum Percentage of Vehicles
Model Certified to Running Loss and
Year Useful Life Standards [FNa1]
----- ------------------------------
1995 10 percent
1996 30 percent
1997 50 percent

---------
[FNa1] The minimum percentage of motor vehicles of each vehicle type required to be certified to the running loss and useful life standards shall be based on the manufacturer's projected California model-year sales (a) of passenger cars and (b) of light-duty trucks, medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles. Optionally, the percentage of motor vehicles can also be based on the manufacturer's projected California model-year sales (a) of passenger cars and light-duty trucks and (b) of medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles.
[FNbeginning] with the 1998 model year, all motor vehicles subject to the running loss and useful life standards, except those produced by ultra-small volume manufacturers, shall be certified to the specified standards. In the 1999 through 2005 model years, all motor vehicles subject to the running loss and useful life standards, including those produced by ultra-small volume manufacturers, shall be certified to the specified standards.
[FNall] 1995 through 1998 model-year motor vehicles which are not subject to running loss and useful life standards pursuant to the phase-in schedule shall comply with the 50,000-mile standards in effect for 1980 through 1994 model-year vehicles.
[FN4] For the 1995 model year only, the evaporative emission standards for complete vehicles in this weight range shall be 2.0 grams/test and compliance with the evaporative emission standards shall be based on the SHED conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, sections 86.130-78 through 86.143-90 as they existed July 1, 1989. For the 1995 through 2005 model years, the evaporative emission standards for incomplete vehicles in this weight range shall be 2.0 grams/test and compliance with the evaporative emission standards shall be based on the test procedures specified in paragraph 4.g. of the "California Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 1978 and Subsequent Model Motor Vehicles."
[FN5] The running loss and useful life standards for all hybrid electric vehicles shall be effective beginning in the 1993 model year.
(C) For vehicles identified below, tested in accordance with the test procedure which includes the hot soak test and the 48 hour diurnal test, the evaporative emission standards are:
Hydrocarbons [FN1]
Two-Day Diurnal + Hot Soak
(grams/test)
Vehicle Type Model Year Useful Life [FN2]
Passenger cars 1996 through 2.5
Light-duty trucks 2005 [FN3] 2.5
Medium-duty vehicles
(6.001 - 8,500 lbs. GVWR)
with fuel tanks < 30 gallons 2.5
with fuel tanks> 30 gallons 3.0
(8,501 - 14,000 lbs. GVWR) 3.5
Heavy-duty vehicles 4.5
(over 14,000 lbs. GVWR)
Hybrid electric passenger cars 1996 through 2.5
Hybrid electric light-duty trucks 2005 [FN3] 2.5
Hybrid electric medium-duty vehicles 2.5

[FN1] Organic Material Hydrocarbon Equivalent for alcohol-fueled vehicles.
[FN2] For purposes of this paragraph, "useful life" shall have the same meaning as provided in section 2112, Title 13, California Code of Regulations. Approval of vehicles which are not exhaust emission tested using a chassis dynamometer pursuant to section 1960.1 or 1961, Title 13, California Code of Regulations shall be based on an engineering evaluation of the system and data submitted by the applicant.
[FN3] The two-day diurnal plus hot soak evaporative emission standards (hereinafter "supplemental standards") shall be phased-in beginning with the 1996 model year. Those vehicles certified under the running loss and useful life standards for the 1996 through 2005 model years must also be certified under the supplemental standards.
(D) Zero-emission vehicles shall produce zero fuel evaporative emissions under any and all possible operational modes and conditions.
(E) The optional zero-fuel evaporative emission standards for the three-day and two-day diurnal-plus-hot-soak tests are 0.35 grams per test for passenger cars, 0.50 grams per test for light-duty trucks 6,000 lbs. GVWR and under, and 0.75 grams per test for light-duty trucks from 6,001 to 8,500 lbs. GVWR, to account for vehicle non-fuel evaporative emissions (resulting from paints, upholstery, tires, and other vehicle sources). Vehicles demonstrating compliance with these evaporative emission standards shall also have zero (0.0) grams of fuel evaporative emissions per test for the three-day and two-day diurnal-plus-hot-soak tests. The "useful life" shall be 15 years or 150,000 miles, whichever occurs first. In lieu of demonstrating compliance with the zero (0.0) grams of fuel evaporative emissions per test over the three-day and two-day diurnal-plus-hot-soak tests, the manufacturer may submit for advance Executive Officer approval a test plan to demonstrate that the vehicle has zero (0.0) grams of fuel evaporative emissions throughout its useful life. (continued)