[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 20, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56844-56856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24048]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 85

[FRL-6871-4]
RIN 2060-AJ03


Amendments to Vehicle Inspection Maintenance Program Requirements 
Incorporating the Onboard Diagnostic Check

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes both substantive and minor revisions to 
the Motor Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) requirements to provide 
additional flexibility to state I/M programs by allowing such programs 
to replace traditional I/M tests on model year 1996 and newer vehicles 
so equipped with a check of the onboard diagnostic (OBD) system. 
Additionally, the proposed amendments would: extend the deadline for 
beginning OBD inspections from January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2002; 
revise and simplify the failure criteria for the OBD check; address 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) credit modeling for the OBD check; 
allow for limited exemptions from some OBD check failure and/or 
rejection criteria for certain model year vehicles; and correct a 
typographical error in the current basic I/M performance standard 
regarding OBD-I/M vehicle coverage. Lastly, this document solicits 
public comment on how to address the issue of repair waivers for OBD-
equipped vehicles and the possibility of extending the deadline for 
implementing OBD-I/M checks even further.

DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received no later than 
October 20, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in duplicate 
if possible) to Public Docket No. A-2000-16. It is requested that a 
duplicate copy be submitted to David Sosnowski at the address in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The docket is located at the 
Air Docket, Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall S.W., Washington, DC 
20460. The docket may be inspected between 8:30 a.m. and 12 noon and 
between 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying docket material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Sosnowski, Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs 
Division, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105. Telephone (734) 
214-4823.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   

I. Table of Contents
II. Summary of Proposal
III. Authority
IV. Background of the Proposed Amendments
    A. Amendments to Extend the Implementation Deadline
    B. Amendments to Reduce Testing Burden
    C. SIP Credit Modeling Amendments
    D. OBD-I/M Failure Criteria Amendments
    E. OBD-I/M Rejection Criteria Amendments
    F. Technical Amendment
V. Discussion of Major Issues
    A. Emission Impact of the Proposed Amendments
    B. Impact on Existing and Future I/M Programs
VI. Economic Costs and Benefits
VII. Public Participation
VIII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Administrative Designation
    B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

II. Summary of Proposal

    Under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., 
states required to implement vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) 
programs were further required to incorporate a check of the onboard 
diagnostic (OBD) computer as part of those programs. On November 5, 
1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the 
Federal Register (40 CFR part 51, subpart S) a rule related to state 
air quality implementation plans for I/M programs (hereafter referred 
to as the I/M rule; see 57 FR 52950). At the time the 1992 rule was 
published, certification regulations for OBD had not been finalized, 
and so EPA reserved space in the I/M rule to address OBD-I/M 
requirements at some later date. Since 1992, EPA has twice amended the 
I/M rule to address various aspects of the OBD-I/M check--first, on 
August 6, 1996, and again on May 4, 1998. EPA is proposing today to 
further amend the I/M rule and OBD testing requirements to provide 
states with the greater flexibility they need to better meet local 
needs, to update requirements based upon technological advances, and to 
optimize program efficiency and cost effectiveness.
    With today's document EPA proposes to: (1) Extend the current 
deadline for mandatory implementation of the OBD-I/M inspection from 
January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2002; (2) clarify that I/M programs may 
use periodic checks of the OBD system on model year (MY) 1996 and newer 
OBD-equipped vehicles in lieu of (as opposed to in addition to) 
existing exhaust and evaporative system purge and fill-neck pressure 
tests on those same vehicles; (3) establish the modeling methodology to 
be used by states in their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to account 
for the replacement of traditional I/M tests by OBD-I/M testing and 
repair, prior to release of MOBILE6 and subsequent iterations of EPA's 
mobile source emission factor model; (4) revise and simplify the 
current list of Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) that constitute the 
OBD-I/M failure criteria to include any DTC that leads to the dashboard 
Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) being commanded on; (5) provide for 
exemptions from specific readiness code rejection criteria on OBD-
equipped vehicles based upon vehicle model year; and (6) correct a 
typographical error in the basic I/M performance standard's OBD 
coverage (which currently applies OBD-I/M testing to both light-duty 
vehicles and light-duty trucks) to limit such testing coverage to 
light-duty vehicles only, for the purpose of establishing the minimum, 
basic I/M performance standard.
    The goal of these proposed amendments is to update and streamline 
requirements and to remove regulatory obstacles that would impede the 
effective implementation of the OBD-
I/M testing required of all I/M programs under the Clean Air Act as 
amended in 1990. By extending the deadline by which states must begin 
implementation of OBD-I/M inspections, EPA hopes to provide states the 
time necessary to better educate the public and the testing

[[Page 56845]]

and repair industries regarding this important emission control 
technology, and to reduce the potential for start-up difficulties that 
have undercut previous I/M efforts in many areas. EPA also hopes to 
help states maximize the efficiency and cost effectiveness of their I/M 
programs by allowing them to eliminate functionally redundant testing 
requirements. That said, it should be pointed out that it is not the 
goal of this proposal to provide comprehensive guidance on how to 
successfully implement OBD-I/M testing in an I/M program. Separate 
guidance addressing the non-regulatory aspects of OBD-I/M 
implementation will be issued by EPA in conjunction with today's 
proposal and made available to the public via EPA's web site and by 
request to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section of this document.
    Today's proposed amendments are based upon EPA's findings gathered 
during three separate OBD-I/M pilot studies, which focused on the 
following aspects of OBD-I/M testing: (1) OBD's effectiveness as 
compared to existing exhaust emission testing; (2) OBD's effectiveness 
as compared to existing evaporative system testing; and (3) the unique 
implementation issues associated with incorporating checks of the OBD 
system into a traditional I/M setting. Elements of today's proposal are 
also based upon EPA's discussions with states regarding their 
preparedness for OBD-I/M testing as well as on recommendations made by 
the OBD Workgroup of the Mobile Source Technical Review Subcommittee 
established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The 
results of those pilot studies and the FACA workgroup recommendations 
can be found in the docket for this proposal. Copies of those materials 
may be obtained from the docket directly, or by contacting the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 
document.

III. Authority

    Authority for the rule changes proposed in this document is granted 
to EPA by sections 182, 202, 207, and 301 of the Clean Air Act as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.).

IV. Background of the Proposed Amendments

    The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or Act) requires EPA to 
set guidelines for states to follow in designing and running both basic 
and enhanced I/M programs. The Act also established certain minimum 
design specifications for these programs, including, among other 
things, a requirement that both basic and enhanced I/M programs conduct 
periodic inspections of the onboard diagnostic (OBD) system of vehicles 
so equipped. When EPA published the original I/M rule in 1992, 
emission-based federal certification standards for OBD were still being 
developed. To address the Act's OBD-I/M requirement, EPA reserved 
sections in the 1992 I/M rule to be amended at some future date.
    Although the federal requirement for OBD as an element of vehicle 
design began with model year (MY) 1994, manufacturers were allowed to 
request waivers on vehicles for MY 1994-95, so that the current 
generation of OBD (also known as OBDII) was not required on all light-
duty cars and trucks sold in this country until MY 1996. On August 6, 
1996, EPA published amendments to the I/M rule establishing OBD-I/M 
performance standard and SIP requirements. The 1996 amendments also 
specified data collection, analysis, and summary reporting requirements 
for the OBD-I/M testing element; established OBD test equipment 
requirements and the OBD test result reporting format; and identified 
those conditions that would result in either an OBD-I/M failure or 
rejection. Lastly, the August 6, 1996 amendments revised 40 CFR part 
85, subpart W to establish OBD-I/M as an official performance warranty 
short test under section 207(b) of the Act.
    At the time the original OBD-I/M requirements were established, it 
was not practical to evaluate the real-world, in-use performance of OBD 
because the vehicles in question were still too new and the number of 
those vehicles in need of repair were too few to make pilot testing 
worthwhile.\1\ Therefore, in 1998, EPA further amended its OBD-
I/M requirements to delay the date by which I/M programs must begin OBD 
testing to no later than January 1, 2001
    One of the primary reasons for delaying the deadline for beginning 
OBD-I/M testing was to give EPA time to evaluate the OBD check as an I/
M program element and to give states time to prepare for 
implementation. In conducting its evaluation of OBD, however, EPA found 
that identifying and recruiting OBD-equipped vehicles in need of repair 
proved more difficult and time-consuming than originally anticipated. 
As a result, EPA has only recently completed its preliminary assessment 
of OBD effectiveness and implementation issues. During the course of 
these evaluations, however, it became clear that certain regulatory 
changes were needed to ensure the smooth implementation of OBD-I/M 
testing by the states. EPA is therefore proposing to further extend the 
deadline for OBD-I/M start-up from January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2002, 
to give states the time necessary to address the issues raised by 
today's proposed amendments. This element of today's proposal is 
discussed in more detail below, under section A, ``Amendments to Extend 
the Implementation Deadline.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ It may be argued that such is still the case, especially 
given the difficulty EPA experienced trying to find MY 1996 and 
newer OBD-equipped vehicles with naturally occurring OBD failures to 
participate in its pilot studies. EPA recently completed testing and 
has begun analyzing the results from a study of high mileage, OBD-
equipped vehicles including 33 vehicles with mileages of 100,000 
miles or more. EPA recognizes the need to continue its testing of 
in-use, OBD-equipped vehicles, with particular attention being paid 
to the durability and reliability of such systems on older, high 
mileage vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's assessment of OBD is based upon data gathered during three 
separate OBD-I/M pilot studies. The focus, general design, and results 
of those studies are discussed briefly below. The complete results of 
the pilot studies--including EPA's analysis of its findings--can be 
found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this proposal, copies 
of which are available in the docket or by contacting the person listed 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
    The first pilot study focused on assessing the effectiveness of the 
OBD check as an I/M test relative to the IM240, which is generally 
recognized as the most rigorous and accurate tailpipe inspection 
currently available for use by I/M programs. That said, the ``gold 
standard'' for all I/M tests remains the Federal certification test for 
new vehicles established under section 206(a)(1) of the Act (also known 
as the Federal Test Procedure or FTP). Section 207(b) of the Act 
requires that all I/M tests demonstrate a reasonable correlation to the 
FTP. Therefore, in conducting its pilot testing, EPA compared both the 
OBD-I/M and IM240 test results to the FTP results on a per-vehicle 
basis. Between October 1997 and September 1999, 201 vehicles failing 
either the IM240, the OBD-I/M check, or both were recruited for this 
study; each received properly preconditioned, lab-grade IM240, OBD-I/M, 
and FTP tests, both before and after repairs. What EPA found was that 
not only did the OBD-I/M check catch most of the same high emitters 
identified by the IM240 (while avoiding the vehicles falsely failed by 
that particular test), it also identified vehicles in need of 
maintenance and/or repair prior to their

[[Page 56846]]

becoming high emitters, thus acting not only as a pollution reduction 
strategy, but also as a pollution prevention measure. The results of 
this pilot are discussed in more detail below, under section B, 
``Amendments to Reduce Testing Burden.''
    The second pilot study focused on assessing the effectiveness of 
OBD-I/M testing at identifying evaporative system failures, such as 
leaks and purge system malfunction, and determining the emission-
reduction potential of correcting those failures, once identified. Like 
the OBD tailpipe pilot discussed above, the OBD-I/M evaporative system 
monitoring results were compared to the FTP results for the same 
vehicles. Testing for this pilot ran from March 1999 to May 2000, and 
included a total of 30 vehicles. Unlike the OBD tailpipe study 
discussed above, the OBD evaporative pilot involved the use of induced 
evaporative system failures, as opposed to the recruitment of actual, 
in-use failures. Induced failures were used due to the difficulty EPA 
had in finding MY 1996+ OBD-equipped vehicles with naturally occurring 
evaporative system problems, which, in turn, was due to the relative 
newness of the vehicles in question, and the observation that the vast 
majority of naturally occurring problems were attributable to loose gas 
caps. Use of induced evaporative system failures thus allowed EPA to 
more thoroughly investigate the effectiveness of OBD systems in 
detecting a variety of potential in-use failures. Unlike tailpipe 
problems which are largely a function of mileage accumulation and 
general wear-and-tear, evaporative system problems tend to be a 
function of vehicle age, as the rubber components of the system lose 
elasticity and become brittle and more leak-prone. What EPA found was 
that in the vast majority of cases, the induced failure was accurately 
identified by the OBD system, that substantial emission reductions were 
achieved as a result of repairing the failures, and that the OBD 
computer responded to repairs by correctly verifying that the failure 
conditions had been removed (i.e., when the vehicle was operated to 
reset the evaporative system readiness flags, no DTCs or illuminated 
MILs were observed).
    In addition to these findings, an earlier EPA-sponsored FTP testing 
program showed high evaporative emissions from leaking gas caps. 
Furthermore, in comparing the test results for gas cap tests versus 
OBD-based evaporative system tests from the Wisconsin I/M program's 
data, EPA found that the gas cap test failed considerably more vehicles 
than were identified by the OBD evaporative system monitors alone. This 
result is not too surprising, given the more stringent test criteria 
for the gas cap test. Based on these findings, EPA believes that 
continuing to conduct the gas cap check on OBD-equipped vehicles (and 
replacing those gas caps that fail the check) is a good supplement to 
OBD-I/M testing. EPA therefore recommends that the gas cap check be 
conducted in concert with OBD testing. However, the gas cap check is 
the only test that EPA recommends be continued in conjunction with OBD-
I/M testing, and for which additional credit will be available in 
MOBILE6. The results of the OBD evaporative pilot are discussed in more 
detail below, under section B, ``Amendments to Reduce Testing Burden.''
    The last of the three OBD-I/M pilot studies was aimed at 
identifying the real-world implementation issues associated with OBD-I/
M testing and was conducted using data gathered from the Wisconsin 
enhanced I/M test lanes, where OBD checks were being implemented 
voluntarily by the state. One portion of the study was conducted under 
contract to EPA by Sierra Research. This portion of the study looked at 
data related to program implementation from May 1998 and July 1998 and 
included paired IM240 and OBD testing on over 2,500 MY 1996+ OBD-
equipped vehicles. Separate from the Sierra Research analysis, EPA 
looked at data from Wisconsin's I/M program \2\ for the last eight 
months of 1999, which included IM240, gas cap, and OBD-I/M test results 
on approximately 94,000 MY 1996+ vehicles. In reviewing these two sets 
of real-world I/M data, EPA identified two OBD-related implementation 
issues: (1) unset OBD readiness flags, and 2) atypical OBD data link 
connector (DLC) locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Wisconsin is one of a handful of I/M states that have 
voluntarily opted to begin OBD-I/M testing early. Currently, 
Wisconsin is not failing vehicles on the basis of their OBD-I/M test 
results. During the current phase-in period, OBD-I/M test results 
are purely advisory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the first--unset readiness flags--EPA found that when it 
excluded vehicles for which corrective measures are being taken by the 
manufacturers, roughly 3% of MY 1996 vehicles have unset readiness 
flags for the catalyst and/or evaporative system monitors, and that 
this number dropped to below 1% for MY 1998 vehicles. This issue is 
discussed in more detail below, under section E, ``OBD-I/M Rejection 
Criteria Amendments.''
    Regarding the second problem area--atypical DLC locations--EPA has 
developed a database of DLC locations based upon its Wisconsin data and 
manufacturer-supplied information. Electronic copies of this database 
are available by contacting Arvon Mitcham at (734)214-4522. EPA has 
found that the development of this database and increased inspector 
experience has eliminated DLC location as a problem area in the 
Wisconsin program.
    Coincident with the pilot testing described above and the 
development of today's proposal, EPA staff participated in an OBD 
Workgroup which was formed by the Mobile Source Technical Review 
Subcommittee, itself established under the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (FACA). The OBD Workgroup included members representing a broad 
range of OBD and I/M stakeholders (for a list of workgroup members, see 
the docket). EPA shared the results of its pilot studies with the OBD 
Workgroup while those studies were still in process and used the 
workgroup's suggestions and recommendations as a resource to guide the 
studies' progress. During the course of these discussions, FACA 
workgroup members made recommendations concerning regulatory revisions 
needed to facilitate the smooth implementation of OBD-I/M testing. 
Those recommendations have been considered and addressed in today's 
proposal. Copies of the FACA workgroup recommendations are available 
from the docket or by contacting the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
    Today's proposals and EPA's rationale for each are discussed under 
separate headings below.

A. Amendments To Extend the Implementation Deadline

1. What Was the Original Deadline?
    The 1992 I/M rule was first amended in August 1996 to establish the 
original OBD-I/M requirements. These requirements assumed dual testing 
of OBD-equipped vehicles with both traditional I/M tests and the OBD-I/
M check, and included an implementation deadline of January 1, 1998 for 
all I/M areas, with the exception of those areas qualifying for the 
Ozone Transport Region (OTR) low enhanced performance standard, which 
were allowed to start OBD testing one year later, by January 1, 1999. 
Although testing of the OBD system was required to start in 1998 or 
1999, depending upon the area, states were not required to fail 
vehicles on the basis of OBD-I/M testing until January 1, 2000. The 
first cycle of OBD-
I/M testing was intended to be advisory and was to be conducted

[[Page 56847]]

mainly as a means of gathering data on the effectiveness of OBD checks 
relative to other, more traditional I/M tests. At the time the original 
OBD-I/M requirements were promulgated in 1996, OBD-equipped vehicles 
were still brand new and EPA had no basis for affording SIP credit for 
what was essentially an untested test type. EPA's original intention 
was to analyze data gathered by the states during the first, advisory 
phase of OBD-I/M testing, and to use this analysis as the basis for 
establishing SIP credit during the second, and mandatory phase of OBD-
I/M.
    Subsequent to the original 1996 requirements, EPA concluded that it 
was not appropriate to require states to perform what amounted to 
mandatory pilot testing on behalf of the Agency. Therefore, on May 4, 
1998, EPA revised its original OBD-I/M requirements to delay the date 
by which I/M programs were to begin OBD-I/M testing to no later than 
January 1, 2001. The goal of this delay was to give EPA time to 
evaluate the OBD check as an I/M program element based on its own pilot 
testing, to develop an appropriate level of SIP credit for OBD-I/M 
testing, to determine whether dual testing was necessary or desirable, 
and to give states time to better prepare for the eventual 
implementation of OBD-I/M testing.
2. What Regulatory Change Does EPA Propose?
    In conducting its evaluation of OBD-I/M testing, EPA found that 
identifying and recruiting OBD-equipped vehicles in need of repair 
proved more difficult and time-consuming than originally anticipated. 
As a result, EPA has only recently completed its preliminary assessment 
of OBD effectiveness. Nevertheless, based upon this assessment, it is 
clear that rule changes are needed to ensure the smooth implementation 
of OBD-
I/M testing by the states. EPA is therefore proposing to further extend 
the deadline for OBD-I/M start-up from January 1, 2001 to January 1, 
2002, to give states the time necessary to address the issues raised by 
today's proposed amendments. EPA believes that such a delay is 
appropriate, given the changes needed, and the lateness of these 
proposed changes relative to the current 2001 deadline.
    EPA would also like to solicit comment on whether a slightly longer 
delay is necessary, given the states' possible need to revise rules, 
software, test procedures, SIPs, et cetera to address today's proposed 
amendments. EPA asks that states also consider the role that public 
outreach and technician training will play in their preparation for 
OBD-I/M testing in conjunction with their response to this request for 
comments.

B. Amendments To Reduce Testing Burden

1. Does OBD Technology Work?
    The OBD-I/M test effectiveness pilot studies for tailpipe and 
evaporative emission testing had two primary goals: (1) To determine 
whether or not OBD technology was actually meeting its design 
expectations in the real world, in terms of identifying high emitting 
vehicles and vehicles in need of repair and/or maintenance and (2) to 
determine whether OBD-I/M checks can replace traditional I/M tests like 
the IM240 and the purge and pressure tests without a significant loss 
in emission reductions. With regard to the first goal, EPA found that 
OBD identified nearly all of the vehicles later confirmed as high 
emitters on the FTP. Furthermore, EPA found that OBD frequently 
identified vehicles in need of repair and/or maintenance prior to their 
actually becoming high emitters, thus preventing high emissions as 
opposed to simply reducing them after the fact. Therefore, EPA 
concluded that OBD technology is successfully meeting its design 
expectations in the real world.
    With regard to the second goal, the OBD tailpipe and OBD 
evaporative system effectiveness pilots reached slightly different 
conclusions regarding whether or not OBD-I/M checks can completely 
replace existing I/M tests. Therefore, we will look at the two pilots 
separately, starting with the OBD tailpipe effectiveness study.
2. Can OBD Replace Tailpipe Testing?
    During the OBD tailpipe effectiveness pilot, EPA found that while 
the pass/fail test results for the IM240 and OBD-I/M check frequently 
agreed, a significant portion of the vehicles tested failed the IM240 
while passing the OBD-I/M check and vice versa. In cases where the OBD-
I/M and IM240 test results disagreed, EPA had to determine which test 
was correct. In investigating these results, EPA focused on the 
vehicles which passed the OBD-I/M check while failing the IM240 in the 
lane. What EPA found when it retested these vehicles on the IM240 under 
quality-controlled, lab-grade conditions was that in most cases the 
lane IM240 failures were, in fact, false failures.\3\ This suggests 
that in the I/M lane environment, the OBD-I/M check at least has the 
advantage of not falsely failing the same vehicles as the IM240--a 
consumer protection benefit, if not necessarily an environmental 
one.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ It should be noted that false failures are an inherent 
element in any ``short test'' approximation of the FTP. In the case 
of the IM240, false failures in the lane can be greatly reduced 
through the use of proper preconditioning, second-chance testing, 
and other quality control measures.
    \4\ False failures can have a negative environmental impact to 
the extent that they erode public confidence in and support of the 
program. EPA is also aware of anecdotal evidence that suggests the 
possibility that attempts to ``repair'' vehicles that are not broken 
can actually increase emissions on a vehicle that should have passed 
in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In other cases, the OBD-I/M check resulted in failing vehicles that 
both passed the IM240 and FTP. Though for a traditional tailpipe test 
these would constitute false failures, OBD is not a traditional 
tailpipe test. Traditional tailpipe tests sample exhaust emissions as 
they leave the tailpipe, whereas OBD monitors the status of individual 
emission control components. Unlike a traditional tailpipe test, OBD-I/
M can identify vehicle emission control problems before the emissions 
themselves are out of control. OBD does this by identifying not only 
emission control components that are broken, but also those that are in 
need of maintenance prior to failure. Where traditional I/M tests can 
only measure the problem once the emission control system has failed, 
OBD (if heeded) can actually prevent the failure from happening in the 
first place (and thereby prevent a relatively inexpensive problem from 
leading to a significantly more costly repair bill).
    Although EPA did find some vehicles during its pilot testing for 
which the malfunction that triggered the original DTC could not be 
reproduced, we do not believe Malfunction-Not-Reproduced (MNR) vehicles 
will constitute a significant problem in operating I/M programs. EPA 
believes that most of the MNR vehicles identified during the course of 
the pilot testing were the result of the recruitment procedures used in 
the pilot, and not an inherent problem with OBD-I/M itself. Under the 
pilot, vehicles were recruited as soon as the MIL was illuminated--not 
an optimum strategy for OBD, which is designed to detect intermittent 
problems like misfire, but one which was necessitated by the scarcity 
of vehicles with any MIL illumination at all. Under EPA's OBD 
requirements, a MIL lit for a random misfire (or other intermittent 
system fault) may be extinguished after three subsequent driving cycles 
of similar operation in which the system fault does not reoccur; after 
forty warm-up cycles without further fault detection, the DTC that 
caused the original MIL illumination may be erased. Under the pilot 
study,

[[Page 56848]]

however, such vehicles were recruited before the OBD system had a 
chance to clear itself, and therefore fell into the MNR category. In 
its discussions with the repair industry concerning OBD-identified 
intermittent problems such as misfire and fuel trim problems, EPA has 
found that vehicles it identified as MNR during its pilot testing are 
frequently receiving relevant, preventative maintenance in the real 
world to ensure that the original malfunction does not reoccur and that 
the MIL, once cleared, stays off. This issue is discussed in more 
detail in the draft Technical Support Document (TSD) included in the 
docket for this proposal.
    Based upon the above criteria, EPA concluded that OBD-I/M checks 
are superior to the IM240 because they: (1) Identify the same true 
failures as IM240; (2) do not identify the same false failures as 
IM240; and (3) identify vehicles in need of repair and/or maintenance 
prior to actual failure of the emission control system, thus preventing 
excess emissions in the first place. In turn, EPA concluded that there 
is little environmental value added in requiring states to perform both 
the IM240 and the OBD-I/M check on MY 1996+ vehicles. Furthermore, 
since the IM240 is considered the most accurate traditional tailpipe 
test available for I/M testing, these conclusions should also apply to 
other tailpipe tests, such as the idle test and the Acceleration 
Simulation Mode (ASM) test
3. Can OBD Replace Evaporative System Testing?
    With regard to the OBD evaporative testing pilot, EPA focused on 
determining whether OBD-I/M checks accurately identified induced 
evaporative system failures and responded correctly when these failures 
were repaired. Another goal of the pilot was to quantify the emission 
reductions that resulted from correcting these evaporative system 
failures. The effectiveness of the OBD-I/M check was evaluated relative 
to the evaporative portion of the FTP. The induced failures included 
missing gas caps, disconnected purge lines, 0.040 inch leaks in the gas 
cap, vent line, and purge line, and 0.020 inch leaks in the gas cap. 
What EPA found was that the majority of OBD-equipped vehicles responded 
to the induced failures by lighting a MIL which then remained 
extinguished after repair. A relatively small percentage of vehicles 
(12% or 3 out of 25) did not illuminate the MIL after the failure was 
induced and only one vehicle in the study continued to register high 
evaporative emissions during SHED \5\ testing after repairs that turned 
off the MIL. EPA considers these results impressive, compared to the 
existing purge and fill-neck pressure tests, which both suffer from a 
relatively high untestability rate due to accessability and material 
composition problems for various makes and models (roughly 30% for pre-
OBD-equipped vehicles and over 85% for OBD-equipped vehicles). When it 
comes to the OBD-I/M check, however, OBD-equipped vehicles are 100% 
testable, by design (provided the Data Link Connector has not been 
tampered--a condition which itself constitutes grounds for failure). 
EPA therefore proposes to allow states currently doing the purge and 
fill-neck pressure tests to drop those tests on MY 1996 and newer OBD-
equipped vehicles in favor of OBD-I/M checks on those same vehicles. 
EPA also recommends that programs add or continue existing gas cap 
tests in conjunction with OBD-I/M evaporative system testing, based 
upon the finding that a separate gas cap check can find leaking gas 
caps not designed to be found by OBD, and the known potential for such 
leaks to produce high evaporative emissions, as noted earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The acronym SHED stands for Sealed Housing for Evaporative 
Determination. SHED testing is part of the evaporative portion of 
the FTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Why is a Rule Change Needed To Permit Traditional I/M Tests To Be 
Replaced With OBD?
    As currently written, the I/M rule requires states to add OBD 
testing to their I/M programs beginning no later than January 1, 2001. 
Although the rule does not explicitly state that I/M programs must 
conduct both their pre-existing I/M test(s) and the OBD check on OBD-
equipped vehicles, the current rule's data analysis and reporting 
requirements include, among other things, the reporting of the number 
and percentage of vehicles by model year passing the OBD test while 
failing the 
I/M emission test(s), and vice versa. The existence of these 
requirements implies that both tests must be done under the I/M rule as 
currently written. Furthermore, the fact that EPA has not provided SIP 
credit modeling guidance with regard to OBD-I/M testing creates a 
disincentive to states that might otherwise prefer to drop the 
traditional I/M test(s) in favor of OBD-I/M testing on MY 1996+ OBD-
equipped vehicles.
    Today EPA is proposing to correct this presumption by making an 
affirmative determination that states are not required to conduct both 
the traditional I/M tests and the OBD check on MY 1996+ OBD-equipped 
vehicles. Given the fact that the Clean Air Act provides the states and 
EPA little discretion regarding the inclusion of OBD testing in I/M 
programs, the only flexibility EPA can offer states to prevent 
functionally redundant testing is to allow them to drop the traditional 
I/M tests on MY 1996+ OBD-equipped vehicles in favor of an OBD-I/M 
check. EPA does not have the authority to allow states to take the 
opposite course (i.e., we cannot approve I/M programs that ignore the 
Act's OBD testing requirement in favor of the traditional 
I/M tests on MY 1996+ OBD-equipped vehicles). Nevertheless--and 
provided it does not interfere with a state's ability to meet the 
relevant performance standard--states may still exempt the newest 
vehicles from all testing for a set period of time. For example, a 
state may be able to delay implementation of the OBD-I/M check past 
January 1, 2002--if it can still meet the relevant performance standard 
after exempting MY 1996+ vehicles from all testing. The ability to 
exempt that many model years will vary on a state-by-state basis and is 
driven by the relative distribution of old versus new vehicles in the 
local fleet, as well as by which performance standard applies.
    EPA believes that allowing states to exempt vehicles from the 
program and to otherwise deviate from specific elements of the relevant 
performance standard (provided the program achieves the same or better 
emission reductions as achieved by the performance standard) is 
consistent with the Clean Air Act, which draws a distinction between 
what is required of EPA in establishing the enhanced I/M performance 
standard, and what is minimally required of actual state programs. For 
example, the CAA requires that EPA's enhanced I/M performance standard 
include light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, but does not impose 
a similar, explicit requirement on actual, operating state programs. 
The CAA also requires that the enhanced I/M performance standard 
include antitampering inspections, but does not require the same of 
actual, operating state programs. Conversely, the CAA requires OBD-I/M 
testing in all I/M programs--whether basic or enhanced--but does not 
explicitly require EPA to include OBD-I/M testing in its performance 
standard.
    It may be argued that since ``[c]omputerized emission analyzers'' 
and OBD inspections are listed as two separate elements required in 
enhanced I/M programs, that neither EPA nor the states have the 
discretion to exempt subject vehicles from one or the other

[[Page 56849]]

test. EPA disagrees with this argument. Maintaining that states cannot 
drop tailpipe emission testing from OBD-equipped vehicles based upon 
this separate-element argument leads to the illogical corollary that 
states also cannot exempt non-OBD-equipped vehicles from the OBD 
inspection. Rather, EPA believes that as long as a state includes 
emission testing on some segment of its subject vehicles, OBD-I/M 
testing on the OBD-equipped portion of the fleet, and meets or exceeds 
the emission reductions achieved by the relevant performance standard, 
then it shall be considered in compliance with the CAA requirements 
regarding minimum test type coverage. EPA believes the Act requires at 
a minimum that computerized emission analyzers be used where emission 
tests are conducted, and that OBD equipment be tested where cars are so 
equipped.
5. What Regulatory Change is EPA Proposing?
    EPA proposes to insert clarifying text making the affirmative 
determination that states may drop traditional I/M tests on MY 1996+ 
OBD-equipped vehicles in favor of OBD-I/M checks in those sections of 
the I/M rule currently addressing OBD-I/M testing requirements, such as 
the performance standards, test procedure requirements, and data 
reporting requirements.

C. SIP Credit Modeling Amendments

1. Will States Lose Credit for Dropping the Traditional I/M Tests on MY 
1996+ OBD-Equipped Vehicles?
    The Clean Air Act distinguishes between the minimum program 
elements that were to be used by EPA in developing its I/M performance 
standards, and those program elements which had to be adopted by the 
state programs themselves to qualify as approvable I/M programs. For 
example, in developing its enhanced I/M performance standard, EPA was 
required to include both an antitampering inspection and an emission 
test on all MY 1968+ vehicles, including light-duty cars and light-duty 
trucks, using a centralized network and annual testing. States, on the 
other hand, have the option of designing biennial and/or decentralized 
I/M programs, are not required to include antitampering inspections, 
and can exempt as many vehicles as they want--provided they can still 
meet or exceed the applicable performance standard in terms of emission 
reductions. States also have flexibility with regard to the type of 
test performed and which model years are covered. In fact, to improve 
the cost effectiveness of their programs, states routinely exempt the 
newest vehicles in their fleets for two or more years, due to the very 
low statistical likelihood that such vehicles will fail.
    As suggested above, states already have the flexibility to exempt 
MY 1996 and newer vehicles from traditional I/M tests, provided they 
can make a demonstration that they still meet the applicable 
performance standard, despite these exemptions. In practice, however, 
there has been little incentive for states to exempt these vehicles 
because doing so would result in a loss of the emission reductions they 
could model as part of their I/M SIPs, thus jeopardizing their ability 
to demonstrate that they meet the applicable performance standard. This 
shortfall would only grow for later evaluation years as a larger 
proportion of the fleet fell into the category of MY 1996 and newer 
vehicles. Performing the required OBD-I/M check on these vehicles would 
do nothing to offset the SIP credit shortfall because the MOBILE5 
emission factor model used for projecting SIP credits does not 
currently include credits for OBM-I/M testing, and EPA has not provided 
guidance on how to address OBM-I/M testing in SIPs prior to release of 
MOBILE6. Therefore, even though EPA's pilot studies suggest that OBM-I/
M testing does produce real-world emission reductions, without EPA's 
proposed action today, states could be compelled to continue 
functionally redundant testing, just so they can claim the credits 
needed to satisfy a paperwork modeling requirement.
    The reason that the MOBILE5 model does not include OBM-I/M credits 
is because when the model was developed in the early 1990s, neither OBD 
certification nor OBM-I/M testing requirements had been established. As 
a result, there was no real-world data upon which to determine how much 
credit OBM-I/M testing should get, and whether this credit should 
replace or be added to the credit already assessed for the traditional 
I/M tests. Although the next iteration of the MOBILE model--MOBILE6--
will include separate and explicit OBM-I/M credit, that version is 
still in development and is not currently available for states to use 
in preparing their SIPs. In the interim between MOBILE5 and MOBILE6, 
EPA proposes that states account for the replacement of traditional I/M 
tests with OBM-I/M testing by assuming that OBM-I/M testing does not 
get less credit than the test(s) that it is replacing. This assessment 
of ``no credit loss'' is based upon the pilot testing discussed earlier 
and addressed in detail in the TSD. In short, EPA has concluded that 
the OBM-I/M check is at least as effective as all other available I/M 
tests, with the exception of the gas cap pressure test--which is the 
only test EPA recommends states continue in conjunction with OBM-I/M 
testing for OBD-equipped vehicles. MOBILE6, when it is released, will 
reflect this guidance (i.e., a modeling run that includes both 
traditional I/M testing and OBM-I/M testing on OBD-equipped vehicles 
will generate no more credit than if only OBM-I/M were assumed for 
those vehicles--with the exception of the gas-cap pressure test, for 
which additional credit will be available). Therefore, under the rule 
EPA is proposing today, states that opt to drop their traditional I/M 
tests for OBD-equipped vehicles in favor of OBM-I/M checks will not 
have to remodel their I/M credits prior to mandatory use of MOBILE6 for 
the next iteration of the states' other SIP modeling requirements that 
include 
I/M.
2. What Regulatory Change is EPA Proposing?
    EPA proposes to revise the OBD sections of the I/M performance 
standards to indicate that for modeling purposes, the OBM-I/M testing 
segment of the performance standard overlaps but does not add to the 
credit already assessed for testing MY 1996+ vehicles. Furthermore, 
prior to release of MOBILE6, the credit from OBM-I/M testing will 
replace (as opposed to being added to) the credit already assessed for 
the testing of MY 1996+ vehicles in the states' I/M SIPs. Therefore 
traditional I/M tests can be dropped on MY 1996+ vehicles in favor of 
OBM-I/M testing on those same vehicles without affecting an area's 
ability to meet the applicable performance standard.
3. Is EPA Proposing To Give Different Areas Different Levels of Credit 
for Doing the Same Test?
    Prior to release of MOBILE6, EPA is not proposing to proactively 
``give'' states SIP credit for OBM-I/M testing; rather, we are 
proposing to ``not deduct'' credit from those areas that drop their 
existing, non-gas-cap-based I/M inspections on OBD-equipped vehicles in 
favor of OBM-I/M testing on that same subset of subject vehicles. EPA 
understands how this may seem like a distinction without a difference, 
the practical impact of which is that areas performing an idle test as 
their tailpipe test will only get idle-level credit for OBM-I/M, while 
those areas doing IM240 will get IM240-level credit for OBM-I/M. The 
fact is that both areas will get the exact same level of credit for

[[Page 56850]]

OBM-I/M--once MOBILE6 is released. Prior to that release, the only 
credit-assessment tool EPA has to offer states is MOBILE5--a model 
which simply was not designed to account for OBM-I/M. MOBILE5 and 
MOBILE6 are sufficiently different from one another that any surrogate 
method EPA would propose to ``trick'' MOBILE5 into modeling OBM-I/M 
credits is bound to produce erroneous results--results which, more 
likely than not, would produce temporary, ``paper'' credits that would 
disappear once areas were called upon to remodel their I/M programs 
using MOBILE6. EPA believes that maintaining the status quo with regard 
to I/M SIP credits while allowing states to drop their non-gas-cap-
based, traditional I/M tests on OBD-equipped vehicles in favor of OBM-
I/M for those same vehicles is the most responsible and conservative 
approach we can take during this interim period between models, given 
the known differences between the two models. Nevertheless, EPA 
welcomes comment on alternative approaches for assessing OBM-I/M credit 
during this interim period between mobile source emission factor 
models. Currently, MOBILE6 is scheduled for release by the end of 
calendar year 2000, and OBM-I/M will be included as a separate, 
modelable and fully-credited program element as part of that model.

D. OBD-I/M Failure Criteria Amendments

1. What Are the Current Failure Criteria?
    On August 6, 1996, EPA identified the list of Diagnostic Trouble 
Codes (DTCs) that constitute the OBD-I/M failure criteria at 40 CFR 
85.2207(d). These criteria were then echoed in 40 CFR 85.2223(b) which 
identifies the required DTCs that are to be listed as part of the OBD-
I/M test report. Currently, the DTC-based failure criteria for OBD-I/M 
is limited to a subset of power train (or P-code) DTCs. If a vehicle is 
identified through an I/M program as having a Malfunction Indicator 
Light (MIL) commanded on for one or more of these P-codes, then Federal 
regulations require that the vehicle fail the inspection.
    As part of the OBD-I/M implementation pilot study, EPA discovered 
that using only a subset of DTCs (as opposed to all DTCs that lead to 
the MIL being commanded on) undermines the potential of OBD to reduce 
and prevent excess emissions. The problem is that once the MIL is lit 
for a relatively minor problem the system is effectively eclipsed, 
should a more significant problem develop between I/M inspections. 
However, one of the significant advantages of OBD systems relative to 
traditional I/M is its ability to inform motorists of a problem in 
between inspections. Ideally, once the MIL has been commanded on, the 
motorist is aware that there is a problem with the vehicle that needs 
correction and will respond by getting the vehicle repaired well before 
such repairs are required by the I/M program. Repairing the vehicle in 
a timely manner can also help prevent minor problems from becoming 
major ones, thus saving the owner money in the long run. Under such a 
scenario, the I/M program is the backstop of last resort that enforces 
compliance with the OBD system. If the I/M program allows vehicles to 
complete the testing process without extinguishing the MIL, the OBD 
system will be effectively invalidated until the next inspection, and 
the public's responsiveness to OBD MILs will be eroded.
2. What Regulatory Change Does EPA Propose?
    Given the above considerations, EPA is today proposing to simplify 
the DTC-based OBD-I/M failure criteria to include any DTC that results 
in the MIL being commanded on. Additionally, in the event that the OBD 
scan reveals DTCs that have been set but for which the MIL has not been 
commanded on, EPA recommends that the motorist be advised that a 
problem may be pending but we do not propose to require that the 
vehicle be failed at this time (unless other, non-DTC-based failure 
criteria have been met, such as a failed bulb check).
    Given the above discussion concerning the MIL eclipsing effect and 
out-of-cycle OBD response, it is important to also note what EPA is not 
proposing with this document. Although voluntary compliance with OBD on 
the part of individual motorists prior to mandatory I/M testing 
represents the ideal, given OBD's potential, EPA realizes that the 
backstop of mandatory I/M is still needed to ensure compliance of these 
vehicles. Therefore, EPA is not proposing that OBD-equipped vehicles be 
exempt from participating in the periodic inspection process. The 
mandatory, periodic nature of I/M and the I/M infrastructure remain 
unchanged by today's proposal. Whether or not they are OBD-equipped, 
subject vehicles must still be presented for periodic inspection and 
must demonstrate compliance with all applicable I/M program 
requirements at an I/M test facility prior to registration in 
registration-based programs. OBD-equipped vehicles will just be subject 
to a different kind of periodic inspection once they show up at the 
lane (i.e., the OBD scan) while non-OBD-equipped vehicles will continue 
to receive the more traditional tailpipe and/or evaporative system 
tests.
3. Will Increasing the Number of Possible OBD-I/M Failure Criteria 
Increase the Burden on Motorists?
    While simplifying the failure criteria to all DTCs leading to MIL 
illumination will greatly simplify the state's administration of the 
OBD-I/M inspection, a logical biproduct of that simplification is that 
more motorists will be failed for OBD-I/M checks under the revised 
criteria than under the current regulations. Looking at six months' 
worth of OBD-I/M data from the Wisconsin I/M program, EPA found that 
less than 0.5% of the OBD-equipped vehicles tested had MILs lit for 
DTCs falling outside the current failure criteria. Furthermore, EPA 
believes that the net impact of today's proposal will be a significant 
lessening of the test burden on motorists, since they will be subjected 
to fewer tests overall under the proposal than would be the case 
otherwise (i.e., a single, sixty second OBD-I/M test versus tailpipe, 
evaporative system, and OBD-I/M tests, which can take five minutes or 
longer to perform). Allowing states to drop traditional I/M tests in 
favor of 
OBD-I/M--EPA believes--will reduce the overall failure rate for OBD-
equipped vehicles, relative to current requirements.
4. How Should Waivers Be Addressed Under OBD-I/M Testing Criteria?
    Currently, both the Clean Air Act and the I/M rule provide a 
minimum expenditure value for state programs which allow the waiver of 
vehicles failing the I/M inspection from further repair obligation for 
one test cycle once a certain, minimum amount has been spent on 
relevant repairs. For basic I/M programs, these minimum expenditures 
are $75 for pre-1981 model year vehicles, and $200 for MY 1981 and 
newer vehicles; for enhanced I/M programs, the Act specifies a minimum 
expenditure for all vehicles of $450 adjusted to reflect the difference 
in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) between the previous year and 1989. 
Neither the rule nor the Act addresses the OBD-I/M check when it comes 
to qualifying for waivers. However, EPA is formally recommending that 
states not allow waivers for MY 1996 and newer OBD-equipped vehicles 
prior to extinguishing the MIL and correcting the cause of any DTCs for 
which the MIL was

[[Page 56851]]

illuminated. EPA also recommends that states consider providing repair 
subsidies or some other form of financial assistance to address 
hardship cases that would otherwise be addressed through the waiver 
process.
    EPA makes this recommendation because of the fundamental difference 
between how OBD-equipped vehicles and non-OBD-equipped vehicles are 
diagnosed and repaired. EPA believes that the minimum expenditure 
waiver makes sense for traditional tailpipe and/or evaporative emission 
test-based repairs because such tests provide little concrete 
information concerning the specific cause of failure. Therefore, the 
waiver helps protect consumers from trial-and-error repairs that amount 
to little more than throwing parts at an insufficiently isolated 
problem. OBD, on the other hand, is specifically designed to help limit 
the opportunity for trial-and-error repairs by linking DTCs to specific 
components and subsystems. OBD does not just tell the repair technician 
that there is a problem, but also what kind of problem and 
approximately where in the overall system it is occurring. Furthermore, 
if an OBD-equipped vehicle is waived from further repair without 
extinguishing the MIL, the practical effect would be to render the OBD 
system invalid until the next test cycle due to the MIL eclipsing 
effect discussed earlier. EPA believes that allowing waivers under 
these circumstances sends the wrong message concerning the importance 
of responding to the MIL and defeats the whole purpose for which OBD 
was designed. We therefore recommend that states bar MY 1996 and newer 
OBD-equipped vehicles from participating in their waiver programs if 
such vehicles have a MIL commanded on at the time they apply for a 
waiver. EPA welcomes public comments and suggestions on alternative 
methods for addressing the OBD-I/M waiver issues discussed here.

E. OBD-I/M Rejection Criteria Amendments

1. What Are the Current Rejection Criteria?
    Current Federal regulations for OBD-I/M testing require that I/M 
programs reject from further testing any MY 1996+ OBD-equipped vehicles 
that are found to have unset readiness flags. It is important to note 
that ``rejection'' is distinct from ``failure.'' In the context of OBD-
I/M, rejection is triggered by a vehicle's readiness status while 
failure is related to the presence of DTCs that command the MIL to be 
lit. If DTCs are present and the MIL is commanded on, the vehicle is 
failed, the initial test process is considered complete and an official 
test report is generated. If, on the other hand, unset readiness flags 
are present, the vehicle is rejected and the test process is aborted.
    The reason vehicles with unset readiness flags are rejected but not 
failed is because an unset readiness flag is not necessarily an 
indication of an emission problem. Rather, it is an indication that 
certain monitor(s) that are intended to determine whether or not there 
may be an emission problem have not been run to evaluate the system. In 
the case of rejection, the issue of whether or not the vehicle requires 
repairs is deferred until the readiness flag(s) have been set and the 
monitor(s) run.
    The current I/M requirements are inadequate with regard to OBD 
readiness because there are many reasons why a readiness flag may not 
be set when an OBD-equipped vehicle arrives at the I/M test site--some 
of them wholly legitimate and beyond the control of the motorist. For 
one thing, not all OBD system monitors are run continuously. Some 
monitors are run every time a vehicle is driven, while others may only 
run after a certain combination of operating conditions has been met. 
Within Federal guidelines, manufacturers still have a fair degree of 
discretion in establishing the monitor-triggering protocols used and 
these tend to vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, as well as from 
model to model. As a result, it is possible that a vehicle may not have 
been operated under the conditions necessary to trigger one or more 
monitors before showing up for an OBD-I/M check. It is also possible 
that the monitors did run, but were then reset when the battery was 
disconnected during routine maintenance on the vehicle, or in an 
attempt to fraudulently extinguish the MIL and clear DTCs prior to OBD-
I/M testing. Although disconnecting the battery will temporarily clear 
any DTCs that are present, these will eventually be triggered again, as 
the monitors in question are rerun. In fact, readiness codes were 
developed specifically to prevent vehicle owners from evading the test 
by disconnecting their batteries just prior to testing. In most cases 
the readiness flag can be set by running the vehicle under load for 
some period of time prior to resubmitting it for testing.
    As part of its analysis of Wisconsin's OBD-I/M data, EPA found that 
a small percentage of the earliest OBD-equipped vehicles showed up at 
the I/M test lanes with unset readiness flags that could not be readily 
resolved by additional, normal vehicle operation. The percentage of 
vehicles experiencing this particular problem is small, and shrinking 
for newer model years. Excluding vehicles for which corrective measures 
are being taken by the manufacturers in the form of service campaigns 
and OBD computer reprogramming, EPA found that roughly 3% of MY 1996 
vehicles had this readiness problem at the time of their initial OBD-I/
M check and that this number dropped to below 1% for MY 1998 vehicles 
receiving their first OBD-I/M check. The majority of these unset 
readiness flags were for the catalyst and/or evaporative system, which 
are known to be difficult to set. Based upon these findings, EPA 
concluded that requiring rejection of vehicles for any unset readiness 
flag is unnecessarily restrictive, and that flexibility in this area is 
therefore warranted. Furthermore, EPA believes that the practical 
impact of allowing this flexibility is negligible, especially because 
an unset readiness flag is not the same thing as an emission problem 
and because of the likelihood that vehicles with unset readiness flags 
during one test cycle will be ``ready'' in time for subsequent test 
cycles. Lastly, the number of vehicles involved is dwarfed by other 
perennial I/M issues such as the non-compliance, drop-out and waiver 
rates, which are known to have a direct impact on the emission 
reduction effectiveness of a program.
2. What Regulatory Change Does EPA Propose?
    Although EPA believes it is important in most cases to verify an 
OBD-equipped vehicle's readiness status, we do not believe that the 
motorist should be penalized for something beyond his/her control. 
Therefore, EPA is today proposing to allow states to complete the 
testing process on MY 1996-2000 vehicles with two or fewer unset 
readiness flags; for MY 2001 and newer vehicles, the testing process 
could still be complete provided there is no more than one unset 
readiness flag. This does not mean that these vehicles are exempt from 
the OBD-I/M check. The complete MIL check and scan must be run in all 
cases, and the vehicle still must be failed if the MIL is commanded on. 
The vehicle should continue to be rejected if it is MY 1996-2000 and 
has three or more unset readiness flags or is MY 2001 or newer and has 
two or more unset readiness flags. This proposal is based upon EPA's 
findings regarding readiness status from Wisconsin's OBD-I/M data 
discussed above and also reflects a FACA workgroup recommendation. It 
is intended to reduce the potential for customer

[[Page 56852]]

inconvenience during this start-up phase of the transition to OBD-I/M 
testing. We believe that the environmental impact of this exemption 
will be negligible, given the small number of vehicles involved, the 
likelihood that at least some of these readiness flags will have been 
set in time for subsequent OBD-I/M checks, and the fact that an unset 
readiness flag is not itself an indication of an emission problem. 
Furthermore, both EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) are 
currently working with vehicle manufacturers to address this issue and 
further reduce the number of vehicles affected. Nevertheless, EPA 
solicits public comment on alternative approaches to addressing the 
readiness issue discussed here. In particular, EPA would like comment 
on whether vehicles with unset readiness flags should receive a 
traditional tailpipe and/or evaporative system test and whether 
different tests should be required in lieu of OBD-I/M testing depending 
upon which readiness flag has not been set.

F. Technical Amendment

    The current I/M rule includes identical language regarding the 
inclusion of OBD-I/M testing in both the enhanced and basic I/M 
performance standards, with each standard assuming that, at a minimum, 
OBD-I/M testing is being performed on all OBD-equipped light-duty 
vehicles and light-duty trucks. While the Clean Air Act requires 
enhanced I/M performance standards to cover both light-duty vehicles 
and light-duty trucks, it does not require that level of coverage for 
the basic I/M performance standard. Currently, all other elements of 
the basic I/M performance standard (such as tailpipe testing coverage) 
apply only to light-duty vehicles, but not light-duty trucks. The 
inclusion of OBD-I/M testing on light-duty trucks in the basic I/M 
performance standard is the result of a typographical error. We are 
therefore proposing to correct this typographical error by deleting 
reference to light-duty trucks in Sec. 51.352(c) of the I/M rule, which 
establishes the basic I/M performance standard coverage requirements 
for OBD-I/M testing.

V. Discussion of Major Issues

A. Emission Impact of the Proposed Amendments

    Today's proposal clarifies existing flexibility currently available 
to states with regard to exempting specific model years from specific 
program requirements. It also provides an incentive for states to 
optimize the efficiency and cost effectiveness of their existing 
programs through the elimination of functionally redundant testing 
methods by allowing such tests to be dropped without any reduction in 
I/M SIP credit. Based upon the pilot data discussed in the TSD to this 
proposal, EPA has concluded that there is little inherent environmental 
benefit from requiring traditional I/M testing in addition to OBD-I/M 
checks on MY 1996+ OBD-equipped vehicles, with the exception of the gas 
cap pressure test. As a result, EPA believes that there is effectively 
no negative environmental impact from providing an incentive for 
eliminating these functionally redundant tests. EPA concludes that any 
marginal environmental benefit that might result from dual testing of 
OBD-equipped vehicles is far outweighed by the cost and inconvenience 
of dual testing, as well as by the potential environmental loss 
associated with ``fixing'' falsely failed vehicles.

B. Impact on Existing and Future I/M Programs

    States with approved I/M SIPs will not have to remodel their I/M 
programs if they choose to exempt MY 1996+ OBD-equipped vehicles from 
traditional I/M tests in favor of OBD-I/M checks on those vehicles, 
provided no other programmatic changes are made. If, however, a state 
chooses to modify its program another way, then a revised 
I/M SIP and new modeling may be necessary.\6\ Nevertheless, it is 
important to note that today's proposed amendments are aimed at 
lessening the overall burden on states while also improving program 
efficiency and cost effectiveness; the proposal does not increase the 
existing burden on states, provided states do not make other changes to 
their programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, if a state which is currently employing a 
centralized, test-only network design for its I/M program decides to 
send MY 1996+ OBD-equipped vehicles to decentralized, test-and-
repair stations for the OBD-I/M check instead of to centralized, 
test-only stations, this would constitute a fundamental change in 
program design. A change like this would require the submission of a 
revised I/M SIP including documented support for the associated 
emission credit claimed, or a good faith estimate of the 
effectiveness of the decentralized, test-and-repair portion of the 
program along with a commitment to substantiate that estimate using 
data from the operating program within 12 months of final, 
conditional approval of the SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Economic Costs and Benefits

    Today's proposed revisions provide states with an incentive to 
increase the cost effectiveness and efficiency of their existing I/M 
programs. The proposal, when finalized, will lessen rather than 
increase the potential economic burden on states. Furthermore, states 
are under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to modify existing plans 
meeting the previously applicable requirements as a result of today's 
proposal.

VII. Public Participation

    EPA desires full public participation in arriving at final 
decisions in this rulemaking action. EPA solicits comments on all 
aspects of this proposal from all parties. Wherever applicable, full 
supporting data and detailed analysis should also be submitted to allow 
EPA to make maximum use of the comments. All comments should be 
directed to the Air Docket, Docket No. A-2000-16.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

    It has been determined that these proposed amendments to the I/M 
rule do not constitute a significant regulatory action under the terms 
of Executive Order 12866 and this action is therefore not subject to 
OMB review. Any impacts associated with these revisions do not 
constitute additional burdens when compared to the existing I/M 
requirements published in the Federal Register on November 5, 1992 (57 
FR 52950) as amended. Nor do the proposed amendments create an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or otherwise adversely 
affect the economy or the environment. The proposal is not inconsistent 
with nor does it interfere with actions by other agencies. It does not 
alter budgetary impacts of entitlements or other programs, and it does 
not raise any new or unusual legal or policy issues.

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement

    There are no additional information requirements in this proposed 
rule which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this proposal will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities and, therefore, is not subject to the requirement of a 
Regulatory Impact Analysis. A small entity may include a small 
government entity or jurisdiction. This certification is based on the 
fact that the I/M areas impacted by the proposed rulemaking do not meet 
the definition of a small government jurisdiction, that is, 
``governments of cities, counties, towns,

[[Page 56853]]

townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a 
population of less than 50,000.'' The basic and enhanced I/M 
requirements only apply to urbanized areas with population in excess of 
either 100,000 or 200,000 depending on location. Furthermore, the 
impact created by the proposed action does not increase the preexisting 
burden of the existing rules which this proposal seeks to amend.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule where the estimated costs to State, local, or tribal 
governments, or to the private sector, will be $100 million or more. 
Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule and is 
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to 
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that 
may be significantly impacted by the rule. To the extent that the rules 
being proposed by this action would impose any mandate at all as 
defined in section 101 of the Unfunded Mandates Act upon the state, 
local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, as explained 
above, this proposed rule is not estimated to impose costs in excess of 
$100 million. Therefore, EPA has not prepared a statement with respect 
to budgetary impacts. As noted above, this rule offers opportunities to 
states that would enable them to lower economic burdens from those 
resulting from the currently existing I/M rule.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless 
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process 
of developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. On the contrary, the intent of 
today's proposed rule is to provide states greater flexibility with 
regard to pre-existing regulatory and statutory requirements for 
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
proposal.

F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's 
proposal does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of 
Indian tribal governments. Today's proposal does not create a mandate 
on tribal governments or create any additional burden or requirements 
for tribal government. The proposal does not impose any enforceable 
duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) 
of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this proposal.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined 
under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health 
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA 
interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory 
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the 
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to 
influence the regulation. This proposal is not subject to Executive 
Order 13045 because it is not economically significant under Executive 
Order 12866 and because it is based on technology performance and not 
on health or safety risks.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary 
consensus standards instead of government-unique standards in their 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods, 
sampling and analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are 
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards 
bodies. Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary 
consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and 
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal 
agencies like EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations 
when an agency decides not to use available and

[[Page 56854]]

applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    These proposed amendments do not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, 
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 85

    Environmental protection, Confidential business information, 
Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Research, Warranties.

    Dated: September 12, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 51 and 85 of chapter 
I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be 
amended to read as follows:

PART 51--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart S--[Amended]

    2. Section 51.351 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 51.351  Enhanced I/M performance standard.

* * * * *
    (c) On-board diagnostics (OBD). The performance standard shall 
include inspection of all 1996 and later light-duty vehicles and light-
duty trucks equipped with certified on-board diagnostic systems, and 
repair of malfunctions or system deterioration identified by or 
affecting OBD systems as specified in Sec. 51.357. For States using 
some version of MOBILE5 prior to mandated use of the MOBILE6 and 
subsequent versions of EPA's mobile source emission factor model, the 
OBD-I/M portion of the State's program as well as the applicable 
enhanced I/M performance standard may be assumed to be equal to the 
tests previously covering MY 1996 and newer vehicles in both the 
applicable performance standard and the I/M program contained in the 
State's I/M State Implementation Plan (SIP), with the intention that 
the inclusion of OBD-I/M testing in either case will neither increase 
nor decrease the credit currently established or claimed. This interim 
assumption shall apply even in the event that the State opts to 
discontinue its current I/M tests on MY 1996 and newer vehicles in 
favor of an OBD-I/M check on those same vehicles, with the exception of 
the gas-cap evaporative system test. If a State currently claiming the 
gas-cap test in its I/M SIP decides to discontinue that test on some 
segment of its subject fleet previously covered, then the State will 
need to revise its SIP and I/M modeling to quantify the resulting loss 
in credit, per established modeling policy for the gas-cap pressure 
test.
* * * * *
    3. Section 51.352 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 51.352  Basic I/M performance standard.

* * * * *
    (c) On-board diagnostics (OBD). The performance standard shall 
include inspection of all 1996 and later light-duty vehicles equipped 
with certified on-board diagnostic systems, and repair of malfunctions 
or system deterioration identified by or affecting OBD systems as 
specified in Sec. 51.357. For States using some version of MOBILE5 
prior to mandated use of the MOBILE6 and subsequent versions of EPA's 
mobile source emission factor model, the OBD-I/M portion of the State's 
program as well as the applicable enhanced I/M performance standard may 
be assumed to be equal to the tests previously covering MY 1996 and 
newer vehicles in both the applicable performance standard and the I/M 
program contained in the State's I/M State Implementation Plan (SIP), 
with the intention that the inclusion of OBD-I/M testing in either case 
will neither increase nor decrease the credit currently established or 
claimed. This interim assumption shall apply even in the event that the 
State opts to discontinue its current I/M tests on MY 1996 and newer 
vehicles in favor of an OBD-I/M check on those same vehicles, with the 
exception of the gas-cap evaporative system test. If a State currently 
claiming the gas-cap test in its I/M SIP decides to discontinue that 
test on some segment of its subject fleet previously covered, then the 
State will need to revise its SIP and I/M modeling to quantify the 
resulting loss in credit, per established modeling policy for the gas-
cap pressure test.
* * * * *
    4. Section 51.356 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(6) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 51.356  Vehicle coverage.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (6) States may also exempt MY 1996 and newer OBD-equipped vehicles 
that receive an OBD-I/M inspection from the tailpipe, purge, and fill-
neck pressure tests (where applicable) without any loss of emission 
reduction credit.
* * * * *
    5. Section 51.357 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(5), 
(a)(12), (b)(1) introductory text, (b)(4) and (d) introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec. 51.357  Test procedures and standards.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (5) Vehicles shall be rejected from testing if the exhaust system 
is missing or leaking, or if the vehicle is in an unsafe condition for 
testing. Beginning January 1, 2002, MY 1996 and newer vehicles shall be 
rejected from testing if a scan of the OBD system reveals a ``not 
ready'' status for three or more monitors on MY 1996 through MY 2000 
vehicles, inclusive, or for two or more monitors on MY 2001 and newer 
vehicles, as provided in 40 CFR 85.2222(c)(2). Once the cause for 
rejection has been corrected, the vehicle must return for testing to 
continue the testing process. Failure to return for testing after 
rejection shall be considered non-compliance with the program, unless 
the motorist can prove that the vehicle has been sold, scrapped, or is 
otherwise no longer in operation within the program area.
* * * * *
    (12) On-board diagnostic checks. Beginning January 1, 2002, 
inspection of the on-board diagnostic (OBD) system on MY 1996 and newer 
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks shall be conducted according 
to the procedure described in 40 CFR 85.2222, at a minimum. This 
inspection may be used in lieu of tailpipe, purge, and fill-neck 
pressure testing. No additional emission reduction credit will be 
afforded programs that conduct tailpipe, purge, and fill-neck pressure 
testing in addition to OBD--I/M testing, with the exception of gas-cap-
only evaporative system testing, for which additional credit may still 
be claimed.
* * * * *
    (b) Test standards--(1) Emissions standards. HC, CO, and CO+CO2 (or 
CO2 alone) emission standards shall be applicable to all vehicles 
subject to the program with the exception of MY 1996 and newer OBD-
equipped light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, which will be held 
to the requirements of 40 CFR 85.2207, at a minimum. Repairs

[[Page 56855]]

shall be required for failure of any standard regardless of the 
attainment status of the area. NOX emission standards shall 
be applied to vehicles subject to a transient test in ozone 
nonattainment areas and in an ozone transport region, unless a waiver 
of NOX controls is provided to the State under 
Sec. 51.351(d) of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (4) On-board diagnostic test standards. Vehicles shall fail the on-
board diagnostic test if they fail to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 
85.2207, at a minimum. Failure of the on-board diagnostic test need not 
result in failure of the vehicle inspection/maintenance test until 
January 1, 2002.
* * * * *
    (d) Applicability. In general, section 203(a)(3)(A) of the Clean 
Air Act prohibits altering a vehicle's configuration such that it 
changes from a certified to a non-certified configuration. In the 
inspection process, vehicles that have been altered from their original 
certified configuration are to be tested in the same manner as other 
subject vehicles with the exception of MY 1996 and newer, OBD-equipped 
vehicles on which the data link connector has been altered in such a 
way as to make OBD system testing impossible. Such vehicles shall be 
rejected from further testing until they have been restored to a 
testable condition. Once the cause for rejection has been corrected, 
the vehicle must return for testing to continue the testing process. 
Failure to return for testing after rejection shall be considered non-
compliance with the program, unless the motorist can prove that the 
vehicle has been sold, scrapped, or is otherwise no longer in operation 
within the program area.
* * * * *
    6. Section 51.358 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 51.358  Test equipment.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Emission test equipment shall be capable of testing all subject 
vehicles and shall be updated from time to time to accommodate new 
technology vehicles as well as changes to the program. In the case of 
OBD-based testing, the equipment used to access the onboard computer 
shall be capable of testing all MY 1996 and newer, OBD-equipped light-
duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.
* * * * *
    7. Section 51.366 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(xi), 
(a)(2)(xii), (a)(2)(xv), (a)(2)(xvi), (a)(2)(xvii), (a)(2)(xviii), and 
by removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(2)(xiii) and (a)(2)(xiv) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 51.366  Data analysis and reporting.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (xi) Passing the on-board diagnostic check;
    (xii) Failing the on-board diagnostic check;
    (xiii) [Reserved]
    (xiv) [Reserved]
    (xv) Passing the on-board diagnostic check and failing the I/M gas 
cap evaporative system test (if applicable);
    (xvi) Failing the on-board diagnostic check and passing the I/M gas 
cap evaporative system test (if applicable);
    (xvii) Passing both the on-board diagnostic check and I/M gas cap 
evaporative system test (if applicable);
    (xviii) Failing both the on-board diagnostic check and I/M gas cap 
evaporative system test (if applicable);
* * * * *
    8. Section 51.373 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 51.373  Implementation deadlines.

* * * * *
    (g) On-Board Diagnostic checks shall be implemented in all basic, 
low enhanced and high enhanced areas as part of the I/M program by 
January 1, 2002.

PART 85--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES

    9. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart W--[Amended]

    10. Section 85.2207 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(d) and adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec. 85.2207  On-board diagnostics test standards.

* * * * *
    (d) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (f) A vehicle shall fail the on-board diagnostics test if the 
malfunction indicator light is commanded to be illuminated for one or 
more OBD diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs), as defined by SAE J2012. The 
procedure shall be done in accordance with SAE J2012 Diagnostic Trouble 
Code Definitions, (MAR92). This incorporation by reference was approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of SAE J2012 may be obtained from the 
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, 
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001. Copies may be inspected at the EPA Docket 
No. A-94-21 at EPA's Air Docket, (LE-131) Room 1500 M, 1st Floor, 
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC, or at the Office of 
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, 
Washington, DC.
    11. Section 85.2222 is amended by revising paragraphs (c), (d)(1) 
and (d)(2) and by adding new paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 85.2222  On-board diagnostic test procedures.

* * * * *
    (c) The test system shall send a Mode $01, PID $01 request in 
accordance with SAE J1979 to determine the evaluation status of the 
vehicle's on-board diagnostic system. The test system shall determine 
what monitors are supported by the on-board diagnostic system, and the 
readiness evaluation for applicable monitors in accordance with SAE 
J1979. The procedure shall be done in accordance with SAE J1979 ``E/E 
Diagnostic Test Modes,'' (DEC91). This incorporation by reference was 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of SAE J1979 may be obtained 
from the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, 
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001. Copies may be inspected at the EPA Docket 
No. A-94-21 at EPA's Air Docket (LE-131), Room 1500 M, 1st Floor, 
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC, or at the Office of 
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, 
Washington, DC.
    (1) Beginning January 1, 2002, if the readiness evaluation 
indicates that any on-board tests are not complete the customer shall 
be instructed to return after the vehicle has been run under conditions 
that allow completion of all applicable on-board tests. If the 
readiness evaluation again indicates that any on-board test is not 
complete the vehicle shall be failed.
    (2) An exception to paragraph (c)(1) of this section is allowed for 
MY 1996 to MY 2000 vehicles, inclusive, with two or fewer unset 
readiness monitors, and for MY 2001 and newer vehicles with no more 
than one unset readiness monitor. Vehicles from those model years which 
would otherwise pass the OBD inspection, but for the unset readiness 
code(s) in question may be issued a passing certificate without being 
required to operate the vehicle in such a way as to activate those 
particular monitors. Vehicles from those

[[Page 56856]]

model years with unset readiness codes which also have diagnostic 
trouble codes (DTCs) stored resulting in a lit malfunction indicator 
light (MIL) should be failed, though setting the unset readiness flags 
in question shall not be a prerequisite for passing the retest.
    (d) * * *
    (1) If the malfunction indicator status bit indicates that the 
malfunction indicator light (MIL) has been commanded to be illuminated 
the test system shall send a Mode $03 request to determine the stored 
diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs). The system shall repeat this cycle 
until the number of codes reported equals the number expected based on 
the Mode 1 response. All DTCs resulting in MIL illumination shall be 
recorded in the vehicle test record and the vehicle shall fail the on-
board diagnostic inspection.
    (2) If the malfunction indicator light bit is not commanded to be 
illuminated the vehicle shall pass the on-board diagnostic inspection, 
even if DTCs are present.
* * * * *
    (4) If the malfunction indicator light (MIL) does not illuminate at 
all when the vehicle is in the key-on/engine-off (KOEO) condition, the 
vehicle shall fail the on-board diagnostic inspection, even if no DTCs 
are present and the MIL has not been commanded on.
    12. Section 85.2223 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and 
removing and reserving paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 85.2223  On-board diagnostic test report.

    (a) Motorists whose vehicles fail the on-board diagnostic test 
described in Sec. 85.2222 shall be provided with the on-board 
diagnostic test results, including the codes retrieved, the name of the 
component or system associated with each fault code, the status of the 
MIL illumination command, and the customer alert statement as stated in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) [Reserved]
* * * * *


Sec. 85.2231   {Removed]

    13. Section 85.2231 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(d).

[FR Doc. 00-24048 Filed 9-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P