Thursday, April 5, 2001 - U.S. Government Publishing … Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 66/Thursday,...

Thursday,

April 5, 2001

Part II

EnvironmentalProtection Agency40 CFR Parts 51 and 85Amendments to Vehicle InspectionMaintenance Program RequirementsIncorporating the Onboard DiagnosticCheck; Final Rule

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:22 Apr 04, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\05APR2.SGM pfrm10 PsN: 05APR2

18156 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1 It is important to note that OBDII technology isonly required on MY 1996 and newer vehicles andtherefore the OBD–I/M check is not an option forMY 1995 and older vehicles. For this and otherreasons, tailpipe programs and capacity will beneeded for some time to come.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 85

[FRL–6962–9]

RIN 2060–AJ03

Amendments to Vehicle InspectionMaintenance Program RequirementsIncorporating the Onboard DiagnosticCheck

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Today’s action revises theMotor Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance(I/M) requirements to: extend thedeadline for beginning onboarddiagnostic (OBD) inspections fromJanuary 1, 2001 to January 1, 2002;allow areas showing good cause up toan additional 12 months’ delay; allowfor a one-time-only, one-cycle phase-inperiod for the OBD–I/M check; reviseand simplify the failure criteria for theOBD–I/M check; address StateImplementation Plan (SIP) creditmodeling for the OBD–I/M check; and,allow for limited exemptions from someOBD check failure and rejection criteriafor certain model year vehicles. Today’saction also provides additionalflexibility to state I/M programs byallowing such programs to suspendtraditional I/M tests on model year (MY)1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles provided such vehicles aresubject to a check of the OBD system.Lastly, this action provides EPA’sguidance regarding certain discretionaryelements associated with the successfulimplementation of the OBD check in anI/M environment.DATES: This rule will take effect May 7,2001.ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to thisrulemaking are contained in PublicDocket No. A–2000–16. The docket islocated at the Air Docket, Room M–1500(6102), Waterside Mall SW.,Washington, DC 20460. The docket maybe inspected between 8:30 a.m. and 12noon and between 1:30 p.m. until 3:30p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee maybe charged for copying docket material.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:David Sosnowski, Office ofTransportation and Air Quality,Transportation and Regional ProgramsDivision, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor,Michigan, 48105. Telephone (734) 214–4823.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Table of ContentsII. Summary of RuleIII. Authority

IV. Public ParticipationA. Extension of the Implementation

DeadlineB. Reducing the Testing Burden: The

Continuing Role of Traditional I/M TestsC. Reducing the Testing Burden: Technical

IssuesD. Reducing the Testing Burden: Legal

IssuesE. Retaining the Gas Cap TestF. OBD–I/M Credit ModelingG. OBD–I/M Failure CriteriaH. OBD–I/M Rejection CriteriaI. Applicability of Repair Waivers for OBD-

equipped VehiclesV. Discussion of Major Issues

A. Emission Impact of the ProposedAmendments

B. Impact on Existing and Future I/MPrograms

VI. Economic Costs and BenefitsVII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative DesignationB. Reporting and Recordkeeping

RequirementC. Regulatory Flexibility ActD. Unfunded Mandates ActE. Executive Order 13132: FederalismF. Consultation and Coordination With

Indian Tribal GovernmentsG. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children from Environmental HealthRisks and Safety Risks

H. National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act

I. Congressional Review ActJ. Judicial Review

II. Summary of Rule

Under the Clean Air Act as amendedin 1990, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., statesrequired to implement vehicleinspection and maintenance (I/M)programs were further required toincorporate a check of the onboarddiagnostic (OBD) computer as part ofthose programs. On November 5, 1992,the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) published in the FederalRegister (40 CFR part 51, subpart S) arule related to state air qualityimplementation plans for I/M programs(hereafter referred to as the I/M rule; see57 FR 52950). At the time the 1992 rulewas published, certification regulationsfor OBD had not been finalized, and soEPA reserved space in the I/M rule toaddress OBD–I/M requirements at somelater date. Since 1992, EPA has twiceamended the I/M rule to address variousaspects of the OBD–I/M check—first, onAugust 6, 1996, and again on May 4,1998. EPA is taking action today tofurther amend the I/M rule and OBDtesting requirements to provide stateswith the greater flexibility they need tobetter meet local needs, to updaterequirements based upon technologicaladvances, and to optimize programefficiency and cost effectiveness.

Today’s action will: (1) Extend thecurrent deadline for mandatory

implementation of the OBD–I/Minspection from January 1, 2001 toJanuary 1, 2002; (2) allow states thatshow good cause to postpone programstart for up to an additional 12 months(i.e., January 1, 2003); (3) allow I/Mprograms a one-test-cycle phase-inperiod for the OBD–I/M check duringwhich OBD-failing vehicles will only berequired to be repaired if the vehiclealso fails a tailpipe emission test; (4)clarify that I/M programs may (at theirdiscretion) use periodic checks of theOBD system on model year (MY) 1996and newer OBD-equipped vehicles inlieu of (as opposed to in addition to)existing exhaust and evaporative systempurge and fill-neck pressure tests onthose same vehicles; 1 (5) establish theinterim modeling methodology to beused by states in their StateImplementation Plans (SIPs) to accountfor the inclusion of the OBD–I/M checkinto their existing I/M networks, suchmethod to be used prior to mandatoryuse of the MOBILE6 emission factormodel as well as subsequent iterationsof EPA’s mobile source emission factormodel; (6) revise and simplify thecurrent list of Diagnostic Trouble Codes(DTCs) that constitute the OBD–I/Mfailure criteria to include any DTC thatleads to the dashboard MalfunctionIndicator Light (MIL) being commandedon; and (7) provide states theopportunity to exempt certain modelyear, OBD-equipped vehicles from alimited number of readiness coderejection criteria, with the number ofreadiness exemptions allowed varyingby model year.

The goal of today’s action is to updateand streamline requirements and toremove regulatory obstacles that wouldimpede the effective implementation ofthe OBD–I/M testing required of allOBD–I/M programs under the Clean AirAct as amended in 1990. By extendingthe deadline by which states must beginimplementation of OBD–I/Minspections and by also allowing aphase-in period for those inspections,EPA hopes to provide states the timenecessary to better educate both thepublic and the testing and repairindustries regarding this importantemission control technology, and toreduce the potential for start-updifficulties. EPA also hopes to helpstates maximize the efficiency and costeffectiveness of their I/M programs byallowing them to streamline the overalltesting process with regard to MY 1996


18157Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

2 The September 20, 2000 NPRM also included atechnical amendment which drew three commentsin support and no negative public comment. Thatamendment and the comments associated with itare addressed in the separate ‘‘Response toComments’’ document associated with today’saction.

and newer, OBD-equipped vehicles.EPA also wants to make clear that statesthat wish to begin implementation ofthe OBD–I/M check earlier than thedeadline(s) established by this actionare encouraged to do so and may claimcredit for the check immediately (perthe methodology described under‘‘OBD–I/M Credit Modeling’’).

It should be pointed out that it is notthe goal of this action to providecomprehensive guidance on how tosuccessfully implement OBD–I/Mtesting in an I/M program. Separateguidance addressing the non-regulatoryaspects of OBD–I/M implementationwill be released in conjunction withtoday’s action and made available to thepublic via EPA’s web site and by requestto the FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT person listed above.

Today’s action is based upon EPA’sfindings gathered during three separateOBD–I/M pilot studies, which focusedon the following aspects of OBD–I/Mtesting: (1) OBD’s effectiveness ascompared to existing exhaust emissiontesting; (2) OBD’s effectiveness ascompared to existing evaporative systemtesting; and (3) the uniqueimplementation issues associated withincorporating checks of the OBD systeminto a traditional I/M setting. Elementsof today’s action are also based upon thecomments EPA received in response tothe September 20, 2000 notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM)associated with today’s action (see 65FR 56844) as well as onrecommendations made by the OBDWorkgroup of the Mobile SourceTechnical Review Subcommitteeestablished under the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (FACA). All publiccomments, EPA’s responses to thosecomments not addressed here, theresults of EPA’s pilot studies, and theFACA workgroup recommendations canbe found in the docket for this action(Public Docket No. A–2000–16). Thedetailed basis for each amendment wasexplained in the September 20, 2000proposal and will not be repeated hereexcept as appropriate in response tocomments.

III. AuthorityAuthority for today’s action is granted

to EPA by sections 182, 202, 207, and301 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42U.S.C. 7401, et seq.).

IV. Public ParticipationWritten comments on the September

20, 2000 NPRM were received from 14sources prior to the close of the publiccomment period on October 20, 2000,including two requests for an extensionof the comment period. In response to

these requests for an extension, onOctober 30, 2000, the public commentperiod was re-opened for 14 days, andclosed again on November 13, 2000.Between October 20, 2000 andNovember 13, 2000, an additional 35sets of comments were received. Inaddition to the comments receivedduring the official comment period, EPAalso received late comments from threesources—two sets from commenters thathad not submitted comments duringeither comment period, and a thirdamending comments previouslysubmitted. The commenters fell intofive main categories: individual statesand state organizations (24 sets ofcomments); automotive manufacturing,fuel, and service industries (eight sets ofcomments); the I/M testing andequipment industries (six sets ofcomments); environmental and healthinterests (two sets of comments); andprivate citizens (12 sets of comments).The state comments included two stateorganizations—the Northeast States forCoordinated Air Use Management(NESCAUM) and State and TerritorialAir Pollution Program Administrators/Association of Local Air PollutionControl Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO)—as well as comments from 20 stateenvironmental agencies (Oregon, NewJersey, Illinois, New Hampshire,Vermont, Wisconsin, Utah, NorthCarolina, Missouri, Pennsylvania,Connecticut, Colorado, Texas, Georgia,Massachusetts, Alaska, Maryland,California, New York, and RhodeIsland). The commenters from theautomotive industry included: Allianceof Automobile Manufacturers (AAM);Association of International AutomobileManufacturers (AIAM); AutomotiveParts and Service Alliance (APSA);Motor and Equipment ManufacturersAssociation (MEMA); Ethyl Corporation(Ethyl); Mitsubishi Motors of America(Mitsubishi); National AutomobileDealers Association (NADA); AmericanAutomobile Association (AAA); andAutomotive Service Association (ASA).Commenters for the I/M testing industrywere represented by: SPX Corporation(SPX); Environmental System Products,Incorporated (ESP); Applied Analysis(AA); Waekon Corporation (Waekon);and Donald Stedman (an inventor ofremote sensing devices for assessingvehicle emissions). Environmental andpublic health interests were representedby the American Lung Associationwhich submitted both individualcomments and also took the lead insubmitting a separate letter of commentco-signed by 18 other local health andenvironmental organizations. Of thecomments received from private

citizens, nine were to transmit and/orsupport an editorial by Donald Stedmanopposing OBD–I/M testing and EPA’sproposal which appeared in theNovember 6, 2000 issue of The RockyMountain News. The remainingcomments from private citizens wereeither not directly relevant to thespecific issues raised in this rulemaking,or were used to take issue withindividual I/M programs in individualstates (specifically, Pennsylvania andColorado).

Because of the extensive (and wide-ranging) nature of the commentsreceived, EPA has prepared a separate,‘‘Response to Comments’’ documentwhich can be found in the docket forthis rulemaking (Public Docket No. A–2000–16) as well as online at:www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/obd-im.htm. In today’s action, EPA willsummarize and respond to those majorcomments submitted during thecomment period which were directlyresponsive to specific, major elements ofthe September 20, 2000 NPRM.2Comments which came in after thedeadline for public comment, addressspecific aspects of the TechnicalSupport Document (TSD) for this action,or which deal with broader issuesrelated to the general subjects touchedupon in the rulemaking (i.e., I/M- andOBD-related issues, generally) butwhich do not focus on specific elementsof the proposal will be addressed in theseparate ‘‘Response to Comments’’document.

A. Extension of the ImplementationDeadline

1. Summary of ProposalThe current I/M rule established

January 1, 2001 as the deadline bywhich all areas required to implementI/M program(s) under the Clean Air Actas amended in 1990 were to begintesting and failing MY 1996 and newer,OBD-equipped vehicles based upon ascan of emission control monitoringinformation stored in the vehicle’sonboard computer. In its September 20,2000 NPRM, EPA proposed to extendthe deadline for passing and failing MY1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles based upon mandatoryOBD–I/M inspections to January 1,2002. EPA also solicited comment onwhether a slightly longer delay isnecessary, given the states’ possibleneed to revise rules, software, test



procedures, and SIPs to address theproposed amendments, asking inparticular that states consider the rolethat public outreach and techniciantraining will play in their preparationfor OBD–I/M testing.

2. Summary of CommentsOf the comments received, only one

state (Oregon) opposed delaying thestart-up of mandatory OBD–I/Minspections beyond the current deadlineof January 1, 2001. In its comments, theState expressed concern over changingOBD–I/M deadlines, and the difficultythat this has created for the State intrying to decide whether to moveforward with OBD–I/M. Oregon furtherpointed out that it is required by Statestatute to justify any environmentalrequirement that is more stringent thanEPA requirements. In addition toOregon, one private citizen, respondingto comments made by his home stateregarding the need for a delay beyond2002, voiced his opposition for delayingstart-up of OBD–I/M inspections beyond2001. This commenter also arguedagainst states claiming that they cannotbegin OBD–I/M inspections beforeEPA’s latest deadline, based uponstatutes that bar state regulations frombeing ‘‘more stringent’’ than required byFederal government, pointing out thatswitching to OBD–I/M inspections assoon as possible can be considered tosave both time and money (in thiscommenter’s opinion).

Of the nine commenters thatsupported the proposed delay to January1, 2002 but explicitly opposed delaysbeyond that date, five were stateenvironmental agencies (Illinois,Vermont, Wisconsin, Utah, and Alaska),four represented the automotiveindustry (AAM, APSA, AIAM, andNADA), and one represented the I/Mtesting industry (SPX). Among thereasons given for opposing delaysbeyond 2002 was that it penalizes and/or hinders states that start OBD–I/Minspections early and is not justified foroutreach reasons because training andoutreach materials have already beendeveloped and are available to thestates. In its comments, SPX indicatedthat further delays were unnecessarybecause I/M testing equipment sold tostates like California, New York,Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey,Massachusetts, Georgia, and RhodeIsland are already equipped to performOBD–I/M inspections and merelyrequire a simple software switch toenable that capability. Alaska requestedthat the final rule clarify that states thatchoose to do so may begin OBD–I/Minspections before the mandatorydeadline, and NADA recommended that

EPA provide incentives for early start-up, perhaps by offering more SIP creditfor OBD–I/M inspections under theMOBILE5 emission factor model thanwas proposed in the September 20, 2000NPRM.

Six commenters supported a moregeneric delay in implementing theOBD–I/M inspection without specifyinga specific date. These commentersincluded four state environmentalagencies (New York, Massachusetts,Georgia, and Maryland), the AmericanLung Association (ALA), and theAmerican Automobile Association(AAA). Among the states, New Yorksupported additional time forimplementation if states demonstrated agood faith effort toward implementingthe OBD–I/M inspection. Marylandsuggested it would support delaysbeyond 2002 in particular to allow moredata to be gathered regarding theeffectiveness of OBD–I/M inspectionsand to allow states more time to revisetheir regulations. Georgia indicated thatit supported an additional, optionaldelay to allow states more flexibilityand to not over-burden equipmentmanufacturers. The ALA indicated thatit might support delays beyond 2002 ifstates indicated it was needed and toprovide more time for outreach efforts,while the AAA, citing its priorexperience with consumer complaintsduring the early stages of I/Mimplementation, recommended that theOBD–I/M inspection be delayed ‘‘untilit is clear that motorists will no longerbe unnecessarily burdened andfrustrated.’’

Among the 10 commenters supportingdelays beyond 2002 were two stateorganizations (NESCAUM and STAPPA/ALAPCO), and eight individual stateenvironmental agencies (Pennsylvania,Texas, Connecticut, Missouri, NorthCarolina, Rhode Island, NewHampshire, and New Jersey). Of the twostate organizations recommendingextensions beyond the proposeddeadline of January 1, 2002, STAPPA/ALAPCO proposed the more modestextension of July 1, 2002 for statesmaking a good faith effort towardimplementation. Of the individual statessupporting an extension beyond January1, 2002, four (North Carolina, Missouri,Connecticut, and Texas) eithersupported STAPPA/ALAPCO’srecommendation explicitly, or in spirit.Connecticut indicated that a delay toJuly 2002 is desirable to the Statebecause it coincides with the expirationdate for the State’s current I/M contract.

The second state organizationadvocating delays beyond January 1,2002—NESCAUM—took a hybridapproach, supporting retention of the

proposed 2002 start date for areaswithout pre-existing I/M programswhile proposing a start date of January1, 2005 for areas with existing I/Mprograms to allow for a more gradualtransition to OBD–I/M testing (citingprior bad experiences with rushingimplementation of I/M measures) aswell as to allow for moreexperimentation within the programsthemselves and to facilitate additionaldata gathering and public outreachefforts. Three states (New Jersey, NewHampshire, and Rhode Island) indicatedtheir support for the NESCAUMproposal, either by name or by echoingthe NESCAUM-proposed deadlines.New Hampshire indicated its intentionto begin OBD–I/M inspections in 2001,and stipulated that while it supports theNESCAUM proposal, it does not supportdelays beyond the dates listed in thatproposal. Rhode Island, in turn,indicated its support of the NESCAUMproposal by citing the relative newnessof its own I/M program (which startedJanuary 2000) as well as the need toamortize equipment costs and itsconcern that changing the program sosoon after start-up could negativelyimpact the ultimate success of theprogram.

Taking the middle ground betweenthe STAPPA/ALAPCO and NESCAUMproposals, Pennsylvania proposeddelaying implementation of theOBD–I/M inspection requirement untilJuly 2003. The State also raised theissue that some states—likePennsylvania—cannot be more stringentthan Federal regulations as a point forEPA to consider in making its decision.A variation on this theme was suggestedby ASA, which recommended that theOBD–I/M inspection be offered on avoluntary basis by 2002 beforebecoming mandatory in 2003. ASAsuggested that the additional time couldbe used to gather more data to resolveassorted issues related to theimplementation of OBD–I/Minspections and to do more in the areaof public outreach.

Lastly, two commenters—ESP and itsconsultant, Peter McClintock of AppliedAnalysis—proposed an alternativemechanism for providing statesflexibility with regard to theimplementation deadline for OBD–I/Minspections. Under the ESP proposal,EPA would allow states to phase-inimplementation of OBD–I/M inspectionbeginning January 1, 2002. Phase-in ofthe requirement would be achieved byperforming the OBD–I/M inspection onMY 1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles as a method for screening outclean vehicles from additional testing.Under this scenario, if an OBD-



3 Both Oregon and Pennsylvania have brought toEPA’s attention state legislative provisions whichlimit each state’s ability to do more than EPArequires in the area of I/M. In response, the Agencynotes a state which chooses to begin OBD–I/Mchecks while discontinuing other, more traditionalI/M tests on OBD-equipped vehicles is arguablyreducing rather than increasing the existing burdenon both the test network and the motorist.Interestingly, a citizen from Pennsylvania made thisvery point in his written comments to EPA.

4 An I/M program will be considered to have fullyincorporated the OBD–I/M check once all MY 1996and newer, OBD-equipped vehicles subject to theprogram are required to receive the OBD–I/M checkand are also required to be repaired and retestedupon failure of the OBD–I/M check.

5 Elsewhere in today’s action, EPA concludesthat, at its option, a state may suspend traditionalI/M tests like the IM240, ASM, purge, and fill-neckpressure tests on MY 1996 and newer, OBD-equipped vehicles once OBD–I/M testing is fullyincorporated into the state’s operating program.States concerned that the Agency’s data andanalysis of OBD effectiveness are too limited arefree to continue parallel testing of these OBD-equipped vehicles with both the OBD–I/M andtraditional I/M tests. The Agency acknowledges thatengineering principles and design aspects of OBDmight lead one to conclude that the combination ofOBD–I/M testing and tailpipe tests providesadditive emission reduction benefits. Suchpotential benefits are not currently quantified. EPAwill work with states to develop such credits asappropriate. See the discussion later in this noticeunder ‘‘Reducing the Testing Burden.’’

equipped vehicle passed the OBD–I/Minspection it would complete theinspection process and be considered incompliance with the state’s I/Mrequirements. If, on the other hand, thevehicle failed the OBD–I/M inspection,it would then receive a tailpipeinspection to determine if the vehiclequalifies as a gross emitter. If the vehiclefails the follow-up tailpipe inspection, itwould be required to be repaired tocorrect the DTCs identified by thevehicle’s OBD system. If, on the otherhand, the vehicle passes its follow-uptailpipe inspection, the motorist wouldbe allowed to complete the inspectionprocess without seeking immediaterepairs but would be advised thatrepairs would be required prior to thenext inspection cycle. This phase-inoption would be allowed for oneinspection cycle beginning with January1, 2002. Under this scenario, full-fledged OBD–I/M inspections—withrepair or waiver being required of allOBD-failing vehicles prior tocompletion of the inspection process—would begin no later than January 1,2003 for annual inspection programsand January 1, 2004 for biennialprograms.

3. Response to CommentsIt is clear from the variety of

comments received on the start dateissue that states’ interests continue to beas varied on the OBD–I/M check as hashistorically been the case with I/Mprograms in general. The Agency’s taskin this circumstance is to balance theneed to move forward on this importantenvironmental measure with the needsand desires of states and otherinterested parties upon whom thesuccess of this measure ultimatelyrelies. For example, while EPA hasheard from many states that additionaldelays are needed, we have also heardfrom states who wish to take advantageof the benefits of the OBD–I/M check assoon as possible, but feel constrainedfrom doing something other than whatEPA minimally requires.3 Furthermore,EPA has also received comment from anI/M equipment supplier (i.e., SPX)suggesting that states are in many casesalready prepared for the OBD–I/Mcheck—at least as far as the hardware isconcerned. While it is easy to conclude

based upon comments such as SPX’sthat many states are more prepared forOBD–I/M testing than their commentssuggest, the Agency must also considerthe substantial hurdle softwaredevelopment and installation hasproven to be for many operating I/Mprograms during their start-up phase.There is no doubt that for manyprograms even with OBD–I/M hardwarein place, successful start-up of the OBD–I/M check may not be as easy ascharacterized by SPX.

In developing its response to themany issues and competing interestsraised with regard to OBD–I/M programstart-up, EPA attempted to strike abalance that would provide states asmuch flexibility as possible while notconstraining those areas that want tomove forward as soon as possible. TheAgency has concluded that allowingstates the flexibility provided by thefollowing three options will strike thebalance needed.

The first option echoes the September20, 2000 NPRM: States choosing to doso may delay implementation of theOBD–I/M test from the existing deadlineof January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2002.4Furthermore, any I/M program thatchooses to do so is free to begin theOBD–I/M check before January 1, 2002and may credit the OBD–I/M-testedportion of their fleet using themethodology described under thesection of today’s action entitled,‘‘OBD–I/M Credit Modeling.’’ For stateswanting to start earlier than January 1,2002, EPA encourages them to do so.Nothing in this rule is intended toprohibit or discourage a state fromincorporating OBD–I/M testing into itsI/M program before January 1, 2002. TheAgency rejected a longer, blanket delayfor introducing the OBD–I/M check inpart due to the fact that even thosestates arguing for more time haveregulations, contracts, and equipment inplace which have at minimum begun toprepare these areas for the eventualincorporation of the OBD–I/M check. Infact, the Agency relied on thesepreparations in granting SIP approvalsto the I/M programs in these states. TheAgency does recognize, however, thesignificant difference between havingthese things on paper and beingprepared to move smoothly forwardwith implementation. In recognition ofthese issues EPA provides today for twoadditional options for extending the full

implementation of the OBD–I/M checkbeyond January 1, 2002.

The first of these additional optionsallows states up to an extra 12 monthsto begin implementation of the OBD–I/M check, provided they can show justcause to the Agency that up to 12months later than January 1, 2002 is‘‘the best a state can reasonably do’’ interms of implementing OBD–I/M testsinto their I/M program. Such requestsfor extension will be subject to approvalby the EPA Administrator and approvalor disapproval of these requests will besubject to notice-and-commentrulemaking. The factors to beconsidered by a state in concluding thatonly a late start will allow for successfulimplementation include but are notlimited to:

• Contractual impediments,• Significant hardware and/or

software deficiencies,• Data management software

deficiencies,• The need for additional training in

the testing and repair communities, and• The need for additional outreach

and public education.The second of these additional

options (which can be adoptedseparately or in addition to the up to 12months’ extension discussed above)allows a state with an existing tailpipeprogram to adopt a phase-in approach tohelp ease the introduction of full-fledged OBD–I/M testing on MY 1996and newer, OBD-equipped vehicles.This phase-in option can be used forone complete test cycle (i.e., for oneyear in annual programs and for twoyears in biennial programs). In thisoption the OBD–I/M test is effectivelyused as a screen to help identifyvehicles that are clean and for which noadditional testing will be requiredbeyond the OBD–I/M test.5 However,once the vehicle is identified as failingthe OBD–I/M check, it would then begiven a second-chance tailpipe test todetermine if the fault identified by theOBD–I/M check has reached a point



6 During this phase-in cycle, it is recommendedthat the motorist be advised to seek repairs tocorrect the cause of MIL illumination prior toreturning for testing during the next testing cycle,when such repairs will be mandatory.

7 See discussion of the interim methodology formodeling OBD–I/M credit under ‘‘OBD–I/M CreditModeling’’ later in this action.

where the vehicle’s current emissionperformance is adversely effected. If thevehicle fails this second-chance tailpipetest, then the vehicle must be fixed andreturn for a retest using the OBD–I/Mcheck; if the vehicle passes the second-chance tailpipe test, then it would begranted a one-test-cycle grace periodduring which to seek repairs to correctthe initial OBD–I/M failure. After thefirst cycle of this phase-in, however, allMY 1996 and newer, OBD-equippedsubject vehicles would be required to betested and, if they fail, repaired incompliance with the OBD–I/M testresults.

During the phase-in period describedabove, the test procedure for MY 1996and newer, OBD-equipped vehiclesshall work as follows: (1) The vehicle ispresented for I/M testing and is given acomplete OBD–I/M test (i.e., the MIL,readiness, and DTC checks); (2) if thevehicle passes this check it shall beconsidered a pass for I/M purposes andthe vehicle can be registered (or get asticker as the case may be); (3) if thevehicle fails the OBD–I/M check it willthen receive the traditional I/M test(s)used for MY 1996 and newer vehiclesprior to the introduction of the OBD–I/M check; (4) if the vehicle passes thetailpipe check it can be registered (orstickered) until the next test cycle whenfailure of the OBD–I/M test will resultin repairs being required, regardless ofthe results of any other test(s) that maybe conducted at that time; 6 and, (5) ifthe vehicle fails the tailpipe test (againafter also failing the OBD–I/M check) itmust be repaired and retested using theOBD–I/M check for the retest (i.e., itshall be repaired to turn off the MIL andmeet the applicable readinessrequirements).

This phase-in approach provides thebenefit of faster test times for clean cars(as determined by the OBD–I/M check)by getting them successfully through thesystem very quickly. In addition, the useof traditional I/M test(s) in tandem withthe OBD–I/M check on a subset of theOBD-equipped fleet failing the initialOBD–I/M check allows the program tofocus on getting the dirtiest OBD–I/Mtest failures fixed during this initial,phase-in cycle. In concept, this phase-inapproach is very similar to the use ofphase-in cutpoints in a traditional I/Mtailpipe program. Both approaches havethe same goal: to keep overall failurerates low while targeting the dirtiestvehicles for earliest repair.

Even without a phase-in like the oneallowed by today’s action, EPA does notexpect the difference between failurerates for the existing tailpipe test andthe OBD–I/M check to be significant.Based upon its pilot testing, EPAexpects an overall increase in failurerate of approximately 0–4% for thestate’s entire in-use fleet (at this time,and depending upon the I/M tailpipetest currently in place for MY 1996 andnewer vehicles). It is notable that duringthis same period of time older modelyear vehicles which normally have ahigher failure rate on average and arenot equipped with OBD technology willbe retiring from the fleet and largelyoffsetting the increase on a program-wide basis.

States which choose to use the phase-in option described above may claimfull OBD–I/M credit toward anattainment demonstration 7 provided thephase-in cycle has been completed andmandatory repair is required of allOBD–I/M failing vehicles for at least onefull test cycle prior to the I/M area’sCAA-established attainment date for thepollutants for which the I/M program isrequired. States which do not completethe phase-in of the OBD–I/M check atleast one full test cycle prior to theirattainment deadline may not claimadditional credit for the OBD–I/M testtoward their attainment demonstration,but may continue to claim the level ofcredit applicable to the tailpipe testused to second-chance pass OBD-equipped vehicles during the phase-inperiod.

To summarize, in today’s action, EPAis offering states three types offlexibility with regard to start-up of theOBD–I/M testing requirement. Statesmay: (1) Delay mandatoryimplementation until January 1, 2002;(2) take up to an additional 12 monthsbeyond January 1, 2002 to January 1,2003 upon a showing of just cause andsubstantial need; and/or (3) take up toone additional test cycle to phase-in theOBD–I/M testing requirement inconjunction with traditional I/M testing,following the steps described above.These three start-up options areintended to balance competing goalsand provide sufficient flexibility to thestates. The end result of offering theseoptions is that depending on the lengthof its cycle, a state may postpone thedate for full OBD–I/M implementation(i.e., mandatory repair of all subjectOBD-equipped vehicles that fail theOBD–I/M check) to as late as January 1,2005 (i.e., January 1, 2002 plus one 12

month delay in addition to a biennialcycle of dual, phase-in testing).

Although the second and thirdoptions for extending and/or phasing-inthe full implementation of the OBD–I/Mcheck were not included in the originalNPRM for this rulemaking, EPA believesthat these two additional optionsrepresent a logical outgrowth of thecomments received. The Agency furthermaintains that it is therefore justified infinalizing these options without re-proposing this element of the originalproposal to address these additionaloptions.

B. Reducing the Testing Burden: TheContinuing Role of Traditional I/M Tests

1. Summary of Proposal

Based upon EPA-led pilot studies thatshowed the OBD–I/M check to be atleast as effective as traditional tailpipe,purge, and fill-neck pressure tests whenit comes to identifying vehicles in needof repair, EPA proposed to insertclarifying text into the current I/M ruleindicating that states may reduce theexisting testing burden on MY 1996 andnewer, OBD-equipped vehicles byrelying on the OBD–I/M check alone.This would replace the current programthat required a state to conduct both itscurrent I/M test(s) as well as the OBD–I/M check, once the latter becomesmandatory. Such clarifying text wouldbe inserted into those sections of theI/M rule currently addressing OBD–I/Mtesting requirements, such as theperformance standards, test procedurerequirements, and data reportingrequirements.

2. Summary of Comments

Many of the comments receivedregarding the proposal to allow OBD–I/M-only testing on MY 1996 and newer,OBD-equipped vehicles were aimed atclarifying and articulating thecontinuing role of traditional tailpipeand/or evaporative system tests in I/Mprograms in light of EPA’s proposal.Three commenters (Massachusetts,NESCAUM, and ESP) requested thatEPA clarify its support for continuinguse of existing I/M tests on MY 1995and older vehicles, while twocommenters (ALA and ESP) wanted theAgency to stress the need to retain thecurrent I/M program infrastructure instates—even if the OBD–I/M checkalone is used on a portion of the subjectvehicle population. One commenter(STAPPA/ALAPCO) wanted EPA toclarify that states may add an OBD–I/Mcheck to the continued operation oftheir tailpipe program, while anothercommenter (ESP) argued that the OBD–I/M check and traditional tailpipe tests



8 The Mobile Source Technical ReviewSubcommittee (MSTRS) is a subcommittee of theClean Air Act Advisory Committee, establishedunder the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act(FACA). The MSTRS advises EPA regarding mobilesource related issues and includes a wide-range ofmembers representing interested stakeholders fromthe mobile source community as well as experts inthe field.

are largely complementary with regardto the vehicles they fail and shouldtherefore be used together. ESP thenwent on to suggest that EPA ‘‘hasdetermined that it must choose one testor the other, but not both,’’ and that theNPRM reflected EPA’s bias in favor ofOBD.

Three commenters (AAA,Pennsylvania, and ESP) requested thatEPA provide states flexibility inincorporating the OBD–I/M check intotheir I/M programs, while sixcommenters (Illinois, Vermont, NewHampshire, Missouri, Georgia, andAAA) advocated the exclusive use ofOBD–I/M testing on MY 1996 andnewer, OBD-equipped vehicles(although a subset of these commentersalso suggested that traditional I/Mtesting might be appropriate as afallback to address vehicles with OBDreadiness problems, a comment whichwill be addressed under the discussionaddressing ‘‘OBD–I/M RejectionCriteria’’). Five commenters (AAMA,AIAM, Mitsubishi, NADA, and oneprivate citizen) voiced their support forcomplete replacement of traditional I/Mtests on MY 1996 and newer, OBD-equipped vehicles in favor of the OBD–I/M check, indicating further theiropposition to dual-testing options, suchas fallback testing to address readinessmonitoring issues.

Several commenters—ALA, ESP, NewJersey, and others—expressed concernthat discontinuing the I/M tailpipeinspection on MY 1996 and newer,OBD-equipped vehicles wouldeliminate a valuable source ofinformation for overseeing vehiclemanufacturers and for triggeringemission-related recalls. Several of thesecommenters suggested that EPA’sproposal would effectively allow ‘‘thefox to guard the hen house,’’particularly if dealerships are allowed totest and repair their affiliatedmanufacturer’s product line. Citingrecent OBD-related recalls of Honda andToyota model vehicles, ALA states:‘‘The manufacturer’s self-generated OBDdata will launch potentially costly (andembarrassing) recalls. As a result, amanufacturer—and its affiliateddealers—may have an incentive tocheat.’’

3. Response to CommentsIt is not EPA’s intention to suggest

that the use of the OBD–I/M check onMY 1996 and newer vehicles will orshould affect how MY 1995 and oldervehicles are tested. These vehicles—which are not equipped withstandardized OBD systems—mustcontinue to be tested using the tailpipeand/or evaporative system tests

currently in place for as long asnecessary for states to meet their CAAgoals. Furthermore, EPA believes thatthe current I/M testing infrastructure ishighly valuable and necessary to test theMY 1995 and older vehicles in a state’sfleet, at a minimum. EPA also believesthat the need to test MY 1995 and oldervehicles using traditional I/M testingmechanisms will continue for manymore years to come, though the statesthemselves remain the ultimate judgeconcerning their I/M program needs,based upon local conditions and fleetage distributions.

In addition, commenters haveexpressed concerns with regard to theOBD system’s long term durability, andthe appropriateness of the OBD system’sfailure threshold over the full life of avehicle. While EPA is optimistic aboutthe success of OBD systems, until realworld aging of these systems occurs itwill not be possible to evaluate thequestion of OBD durability. EPAencourages states to take account of thisuncertainty as they consider their I/Minfrastructure needs for future testing ofMY 1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles. EPA will be monitoring theseand other issues such as theperformance of OBD systems bothduring the emissions warranty period ofup to 8 years/80,000 miles as well asduring the full useful life of vehicles.

With regard to providing flexibility tothe states to dual test OBD-equippedvehicles, EPA hereby clarifies states arefree to utilize both the OBD–I/M andtraditional I/M tests on OBD-equippedvehicles. The purpose of this action isto provide states more—not less—flexibility with regard to how theycomply with the CAA’s requirement toperform OBD–I/M inspections on OBD-equipped vehicles as part of their I/Mprograms. Prior to today’s action, therequirement was to perform both OBD–I/M and traditional I/M tests on MY1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles, beginning no later thanJanuary 1, 2001. Today’s action merelyallows states that wish to do so tosuspend the traditional I/M test on thesegment of their fleets that are OBD-equipped in conjunction with the start-up of OBD–I/M checks on those samevehicles. States are not obligated bytoday’s action to switch to OBD-onlytesting on the OBD-equipped portion oftheir subject vehicle fleet; states thatchoose to do so may continue toperform whatever I/M inspection theywant on OBD-equipped vehicles—provided they also comply with theminimum, CAA requirement to performthe OBD–I/M check on these samevehicles as well.

Concerning the suggestion that theOBD–I/M check and traditional tailpipetests like the IM240 are complementary,based on the observation that the twotests tend to fail different universes ofvehicles during the Wisconsin pilotprogram, it must be pointed out that thevehicles which pass both tests(approximately 95% of the fleet) overlapentirely. To argue that the two tests donot agree focuses on the small fractionwhich fail one or the other test and notthe overwhelming majority which passboth tests. However, in focusing on thesmall fraction of vehicles that fail theIM240 or the OBD–I/M check but notboth, EPA recognizes that both programswill have some vehicles which could beconsidered ‘‘false’’ failures. Forexample, a vehicle in an IM240 programcould fail if not fully preconditioned butwould pass on an immediate retestwithout any intervening repairs.Similarly, an OBD system could detecta non-recurring problem and store aDTC which could be detected as afailure in an I/M program but wouldself-clear with continued operation ofthe vehicle. The pilot program datasuggested that at most only 1 to 2percent of the vehicles tested had such‘‘false’’ failures. EPA does not expectthis false failure rate to increase withthe age or mileage of the fleet. Incontrast, we do expect that the numberof real failures detected by either testwill increase with the age and mileageof the fleet and the number of realfailing vehicles detected by both testswill also increase. Consequently, thepercent of failures (real and false)detected by both tests will increasesubstantially as the OBD-equipped fleetages.

With regard to the characterizationthat it determined in advance that onlyone or the other test would prevail as aresult of its OBD–I/M test effectivenesspilots, EPA objects. The Agencyreceived approval for the design of itsOBD tailpipe pilot from the MobileSources Technical ReviewSubcommittee8 prior to beginning itspilot testing program. TheSubcommittee was kept informed withquarterly reports during the two yeartest period and an OBD workgroupunder the Subcommittee monitored theentire testing program. The OBDworkgroup was an open workgroup



which included members from the stateI/M agencies, I/M testing contractors(including ESP), testing equipmentmanufacturers, the automotivemanufacturing industry, and academicrepresentatives. EPA believes thatconducting the design of the testprogram and the program itself in thepublic view with stakeholderinvolvement provided greaterobjectivity than this comment alleges.

Concerning the ‘‘fox guarding the henhouse’’ issue generally, EPAindependently determines the quality ofthe OBD system, both during thecertification process and as part ofEPA’s in-use compliance program; wedo not leave this determination to themanufacturers and their associateddealerships. With regard to dealershipstesting their affiliated manufacturer’sproduct line in decentralized, test-and-repair based I/M programs, theintroduction of OBD–I/M testing doesnot change the dynamics of this testingscenario substantively from thesituation that currently exists withdecentralized I/M programs in operationnow where dealers and other serviceproviders are allowed to both test andrepair vehicles (albeit with tailpipe andother traditional I/M testing techniquesas opposed to the OBD–I/M check). Theexisting I/M rule requires that statesconduct covert audits of all stations inthe program’s test network with vehiclesset to fail the inspection—specifically toidentify fraud arising from the potentialfor conflict of interest when testing andrepair are performed by a single entity.There is nothing in today’s action thatwill weaken these existingrequirements. Furthermore, even in adecentralized, test-and-repair program,not all subject vehicles will go todealerships to be tested and fixed. Otherservice providers will also participate inthe program—service providers withoutthe specific type of conflict thecommenters suggest exist withdealerships. A problem significantenough to warrant a recall presumablywould come to the program’s attentionthrough routine analysis of test results.Should any abuse occur, it wouldbecome obvious to auditors looking atdealer X’s test records that dealer X isfailing its brand-name vehicles at alower rate than when the same makesand models are tested by other stationsin the test network. Therefore, while thepotential for abuse exists, EPA believesthat there are currently mechanisms inplace to detect and correct it.

Concerning the implication that adealership has an incentive to withholdOBD–I/M test information that couldpotentially trigger a recall, EPA believesthe same incentive exists under

traditional tailpipe testing. As indicatedabove, decentralized I/M programscurrently allow dealerships to test theiraffiliated manufacturer’s product line.This practice has not stopped EPA orCalifornia from identifying vehicles inneed of recall.

It should also be pointed out that theHonda and Toyota cases cited were nottriggered as a result of I/M testing.While I/M tests are helpful inidentifying individual gross polluters inneed of repair, traditional I/M tailpipetests are not rigorous enough to use asthe basis for a recall of an entire classof vehicles. EPA’s (and CARB’s)enforcement efforts with regard tovehicle manufacturers and theirproducts involve a three-prongedapproach. First, the vehicle prototype istested as part of the new car certificationprocess. As part of our certificationprogram, each manufacturer is requiredto submit extensive data on their OBDsystems. This data is available forreview and taken into consideration byEPA prior to issuing the certificate ofconformity. Second, at EPA’s discretion,manufacturers can be subjected toSelective Enforcement Audits (SEAs)which involve enforcement quality,end-of-the-line testing to ensure thatvehicles are meeting their certificationstandards once they actually go intoproduction. Lastly, there is in-usecompliance testing which involves theindependent recruitment andenforcement quality testing of vehiclesto determine if they continue to meettheir certification standards in actualuse (which includes a specificevaluation of the OBD system forvehicles so equipped). Nothing intoday’s action will weaken or lessenthese current, and ongoing, enforcementefforts. Additionally, EPA finalized itscompliance assurance (CAP 2000)regulations in 1999 (40 CFR 23906) tofurther emphasize EPA’s commitment toensuring compliance with the Agency’scertification regulations—includingOBD—throughout the useful life of thevehicle.

Nevertheless, EPA wants toacknowledge the concerns that havebeen raised by some environmentaladvocates, some state agencies and otherOBD stakeholders that OBD–I/M testingmay raise new and qualitativelydifferent compliance issues in contrastto traditional tailpipe I/M testingunanticipated by today’s action andexisting enforcement and oversightmechanisms. Some of these concernsfocus on conflict-of-interest issues thatcould arise if automotive dealerships areallowed to conduct OBD–I/M testing.EPA acknowledges that the manyadvantages of the computerized OBD

testing approach could bring with themthe need for some differentrequirements to ensure the integrity ofthe overall program. Therefore, EPA willundertake a public process that includesstakeholder involvement and continuedmonitoring by EPA so that the Agencycan ensure program integrity andsuccessful implementation. Ifinformation develops suggesting theneed to revise this program, EPA willconsider amending these regulations asappropriate.

C. Reducing the Testing Burden:Technical Issues


See ‘‘Summary of Proposal’’ forsection IV (B)(1) above.


Many commenters addressing EPA’sproposal to reduce the testing burden onOBD-equipped vehicles raised technicalconcerns with regard to EPA’sassessment of the effectiveness of OBD–I/M testing as well as with the OBDsystem itself. Though many of the issuesraised will be summarized andaddressed in the separate ‘‘Response toComments’’ document discussed earlier,EPA nevertheless believes that severalof the more frequently raised issueswarrant being discussed here. Thefollowing, therefore, is a subset of thetechnical issues raised with regard toEPA’s proposal to reduce the testingburden on OBD-equipped vehicles.

Six commenters (MEMA, ASA, NewJersey, ALA, ESP, and Peter McClintockof Applied Analysis) stated that there isa need for continued data gathering onOBD–I/M effectiveness, particularlywith regard to assessing the OBDsystem’s long-term durability. Basedupon the lack of available data on thelong-term durability of the OBD systemitself, three commenters (New Jersey,ESP, and ALA) suggested that EPA warnstates that choose to suspend traditionalI/M tests on MY 1996 and newer, OBD-equipped vehicles in favor of the OBD–I/M check that they may need to revertto traditional I/M testing of thesevehicles in the future, depending uponthe long-term durability of the OBDsystem itself.

Four commenters (ESP, AppliedAnalysis, New Jersey, and ALA)expressed concern that the OBD systemitself may miss high emitting vehiclesthat might be caught if the OBD–I/Mcheck was coupled to a traditional I/Mtailpipe test, like the ASM or IM240.Conversely, several commentersexpressed the opposite concern—thatthe OBD–I/M check would fail vehiclesthat are actually clean. Among the



9 In recognition of the potential impact of highmileage on OBD effectiveness, EPA recentlycompleted testing and has begun analyzing theresults from a study of 43 OBD-equipped vehicleswith mileages of approximately 100,000 miles to ashigh as 273,000 miles. Early indications suggest thathigh mileage does not have a noticeable impact onthe effectiveness of the OBD system to detectneeded repairs.

technical concerns expressed bycommenters with regard to the OBDsystem itself, the following four werecited most often:

(1) Several commenters expressed theconcern that the OBD system itself is toosensitive. According to thesecommenters, the fear of possible vehiclerecalls creates an incentive formanufacturers to design OBD systemsthat set DTCs too often and frequentlywell before the vehicle’s emissions havebecome a problem. In other words, theconcern is that the OBD–I/M checkmight allegedly falsely fail vehicles thatare clean. Based upon this premise, thecommenters maintained that thetailpipe test should be used to confirmthat OBD–I/M failures really deserve tobe failed.

(2) Several of the same commentersthat voiced the first concern alsoexpressed the opposite concern (i.e.,that the OBD system itself is notsensitive enough). These commentersfocused on the fact that the OBD catalystmonitor is optimized for detectingcatalyst malfunctions leading to excessHC emissions, and concluded from thisthat the OBD catalyst monitor is unableto detect malfunctions which onlyincrease non-HC emissions, like COand/or NOX. Furthermore, because theCAA requires that enhanced I/Mprograms achieve NOX reductions, a fewof these commenters maintained thatthis omission on the part of OBD is notonly a technical problem, but anallegedly legal one as well.

(3) Several commenters expressedconcern that the OBD system itself is toofrequently ‘‘not ready’’ (i.e., somemonitors have not been run todetermine whether certain componentsor systems are functioning properly).Furthermore, because the emissionstatus of an OBD-equipped vehicle withunset readiness codes is technicallyunknown, these commenters expressedthe belief that some high-emittingvehicles may escape detection without aback-up tailpipe test.

(4) Lastly, several commentersmaintained that the OBD system itself istoo simplistic. Because the OBD systemdoes not monitor for the synergisticimpact of multiple, marginal componentdeterioration, these commenters raisedthe possibility that the OBD system maymiss problems that cumulatively resultin high emissions.

Regarding the third issue—highemitters missed because of unsetreadiness codes—many commenterscited claims made by Peter McClintockof Applied Analysis (an ESP consultant)based upon data from Wisconsin andColorado which reportedly found thatvehicles with unset readiness flags had

statistically significant higher levels ofemissions. Lastly, New Jersey expressedconcern that relying on OBD–I/M testingwould make it difficult to evaluate theeffectiveness of I/M programs.

3. Response to Comments

EPA agrees that the technology of on-board diagnostics needs to be monitoredcontinually both as the systems age andas new technology is introduced.Although the current studies used tosupport this rulemaking were performedon relatively new vehicles (i.e., six yearsold or newer), EPA found nothing inthese studies to suggest that an inherentproblem exists in the technology whichwill be exacerbated with age or mileage.Furthermore, the Agency has alreadybegun testing high mileage, OBD-equipped vehicles and the findings ofthis study suggest that the OBD systemremains durable even at mileages wellbeyond 100,000 miles. It should also bepointed out that the onboard computerwhich makes the decision as to whetheror not to light a MIL and/or set a DTCis a solid state system and contains no‘‘triggers’’ that change the computer’spass/fail decision-making logic basedupon vehicle age and/or mileage. In fact,incorporation of such a ‘‘trigger’’ systemwould violate both 40 CFR 86.000–16and section 203(a)(3)(B) of the Clean AirAct. Both sections explicitly prohibitmanufacturers from installing deviceson vehicles which would have the effectof reducing emission controleffectiveness. Section 205(a) of the Actallows for such violations to be fined atthe rate of $2,500 for each part orcomponent affected.

Although EPA is optimistic about thedurability of OBD-equipped vehicles,the Agency cannot say that MY 1996and newer, OBD-equipped vehicles willnever need some form of follow-uptailpipe testing at some point in thefuture. Reverting to more traditionalI/M testing of OBD-equipped vehiclescould prove a useful and cost effectivebackstop to the OBD–I/M check. WhileEPA does not currently believe that thisis a likely outcome with regard to theOBD–I/M check based upon the testingdone to date on advanced mileage, OBD-equipped vehicles,9 the fact of thematter is that there is no reliablesurrogate for natural vehicle aging thatwill allow the Agency to predict with

any certainty what will actually happento OBD-equipped vehicles as theybecome significantly older than thevehicles studied to date. Therefore, EPAplans to continue recruiting and testingOBD-equipped vehicles as they age, andwill revisit its OBD–I/M testingrecommendations and requirementsbased upon this testing, if and whensuch becomes warranted. Furthermore,although EPA is committed tocontinuing its study of OBD technologyin the future, the Agency does notbelieve this should preclude states fromtaking advantage of this technology atthis time.

Concerning the issue of OBD’spotential ‘‘over-sensitivity,’’ EPA pointsout that it is the job of OBD to ensurethat precise fuel control is maintained tokeep the engine operating near or atpeak performance and to ensure thatfuel economy and emission targets aremet. All critical emissions-relatedcomponents must operate withinacceptable tolerances to maintain fuelcontrol and to ensure the durability ofthe catalyst and engine components.Otherwise, degraded driveability, fueleconomy, and emissions performancemay occur. Therefore, what may beperceived as ‘‘over-sensitivity’’ isactually a result of OBD’s attempt toensure that such degradation indriveability, fuel economy, andemission performance does not occur.This perceived ‘‘over-sensitivity’’ is alsoa sign of one of OBD’s strengths—namely, its ability to identify minor,lower-cost repairs prior to theirbecoming more costly repairs. Theperception of over-sensitivity arisesfrom the fact that these repairs arefrequently identified before they have asignificant impact on the emissionperformance of the vehicle, when theyare still capable of preserving morecostly emission control components likethe catalyst, which can be damaged ifthese early warnings from the vehicle’sOBD system are not heeded.

Concerning OBD’s perceived ‘‘under-sensitivity’’ (i.e., its current failure tomonitor for NOX- and/or CO-onlycatalyst malfunctions as well as itsinability to detect the synergistic impactof minor, but multiple componentmalfunctions) EPA acknowledges thatno I/M test identifies all of the vehiclesin the fleet which are either broken orwhich have high emissions. Based onthis fact it is possible that combiningdifferent identification methods in anI/M program through the use of dualtesting may increase the ability of theprogram to identify some vehicles forrepair that would otherwise be missedunder a single test scenario. At thispoint, however, the magnitude of such



10 The results of this unpublished analysis werepresented by Robert Klausmeier, an OBDconsultant, to a gathering of states and otherinterested parties sponsored by NESCAUM. A copyof this presentation has been included in the docketfor today’s action.

11 It should be noted that the lane recruitmentcriteria in the Colorado study included looserIM240 cutpoints than were used in the EPA OBDtailpipe pilot and that second-chance testing wasalso used to lower the potential for lane-based falsefailures. EPA believes these differences in lanerecruitment criteria account for the lowerpercentage of false failures among the lane-performed IM240’s included in the Colorado studyas compared to EPA’s sample of 17 vehicles.

a benefit from dual testing remainsunknown and EPA does not currentlyknow what increased value this form oftesting may offer. What is known—based upon EPA’s pilot testing—is thatrepairs identified by the OBD system asit is currently designed led to NOX

reductions at least as great as thoseachieved from repairs triggered by theIM240 test at final cutpoints.Furthermore, EPA believes that thecurrent OBD catalyst monitoringstrategy is adequate to detect most formsof catalyst deterioration, and that thevast majority of NOX-related failureswill also eventually result in HC-relatedfailures (and thus will eventually beidentified under the current monitoringstrategy). Nevertheless, EPA willcontinue to assess the potential foradditional credit for dual testing, andwill work with states to develop suchcredits as appropriate.

Concerning the argument that becausethe CAA requires enhanced I/Mprograms to reduce NOX emissions,allowing states to rely on OBD–I/M onlyrepresents a violation of the Act, EPAdisagrees. While it is true that based oncatalyst monitoring alone, OBD–I/Mtesting may miss a portion of NOX

catalyst failures (i.e, those catalystfailures which produce only increasesin NOX emissions without alsoincreasing HC emissions), EPA isconfident (based upon the results of theAgency’s pilot testing) that OBD’scomprehensive monitoring of allemission control systems and engineoperation (such as the Exhaust GasRecirculation (EGR) valve, et cetera) isadequate to identify many other NOX

failures. Therefore, EPA concludes thatOBD–I/M testing satisfies the statutoryrequirement to get NOX reductions, aswell as HC and CO reductions.Furthermore, even if the OBD catalystmonitor does not currently checkdirectly for NOX increases, it is stillcapable of yielding NOX reductions. Inmany cases, a catalyst failing for HC willalso produce excessive NOX

emissions—emissions which are thenreduced as a by-product of correctingthe underlying HC failure. EPA’s pilotstudies have confirmed that OBD–I/Mtesting does in fact achieve HC, CO, andNOX reductions on a fleet-wide basiswhich equal or exceed the reductionscurrently obtainable from tailpipe testssuch as the IM240. It should also benoted that CARB has proposed addingmonitoring requirements for NOX-onlycatalyst malfunctions to be phased-infor MY 2004–2007 vehicles meetingLow-Emitting Vehicle (LEV) II standardsin their upcoming regulatoryamendments (Mail-Out #MSC 99–12,

May 26, 1999). EPA agrees with thisproposal and may include a similarproposal as part of its future OBDregulations.

Concerning the possible use oftraditional I/M testing as a fallback forOBD-equipped vehicles with unsetreadiness codes, EPA believes that thereadiness issue can be adequatelyaddressed without resorting to fallbacktesting by employing the exemptionsfrom the readiness rejection criteriaallowed by today’s action (i.e., two orfewer unset readiness codes for MY1996–2000 vehicles, and one unsetreadiness code for MY 2001 andnewer—see discussion under ‘‘OBD–I/MRejection Criteria’’ later in this action).At this time, the Agency believes thatthe technical evaluation that it hasperformed (and its review of otherevaluations) is consistent with thisconclusion. With regard to the use oftailpipe testing in the case of vehicleswhich exceed the readiness exemptionsallowed by today’s action, the Agencybelieves that an exceedingly smallnumber of vehicles will fall into thiscategory. Review of data from theWisconsin pilot indicates that at most 1to 2 percent of the OBD-equipped fleetmay qualify as exceeding the readinessexemption allowed by today’s action;the percent of vehicles exceeding thisreadiness exemption is expected todecrease as improvements to the OBDsystem are made. The Agency believesthat the best method for dealing withvehicles exceeding the readinessexemption is to reject them and requirethat the unset readiness monitors be setprior to testing as this will maximize theusefulness of the OBD–I/M systemcheck. However, a state’s discretionaryuse of limited fallback testing to addressthis issue is clearly not prohibited bytoday’s action. Successful programswhich choose to use this type of fallbacktesting will monitor the rate at whichvehicles exceed the readiness codeexemption. An increasing pattern ofvehicles being presented as ‘‘not ready’’at the time of initial testing may suggestattempts to clear OBD problem codes bydisconnecting and reconnecting thebattery without completing appropriaterepairs. EPA expects states to takeappropriate action to address suchissues should they arise.

Concerning the claim that OBD not-ready vehicles show a statisticallysignificant higher rate of emissionproblems, neither Dr. McClintock northe other commenters citing his studysupplied EPA with the data upon whichthis statistical conclusion wasreportedly based. Nevertheless, EPA isaware that the study used ‘‘fast pass’’tailpipe emissions data to represent the

full IM240 emission levels of individualvehicles. EPA disagrees with thismethodology based upon the conclusionthat so-called ‘‘fast pass’’ emissionlevels are only valid for establishinggross indicators of whether the vehicleis likely to be clean or dirty, but cannotbe used to identify an actual, absoluteemission measurement that isrepresentative of the vehicle inquestion. EPA is aware of anunpublished analysis 10 which showsthat if the McClintock analysis wasperformed properly using full-length asopposed to fast-pass IM240’s, then nostatistical difference would be foundbetween the failure rates of ‘‘ready’’versus ‘‘not ready’’ vehicles.

EPA also believes that its own pilottesting provides a basis for refuting theclaim made by Dr. McClintock thatcurrent I/M tailpipe data gathered fromI/M test lanes can be used to show thatOBD is failing to identify a large numberof high emitting vehicles. As part of itsOBD tailpipe pilot testing, EPArecruited a small number of vehicleswith no MIL illuminated but whichappeared to have high tailpipeemissions based upon testing performedin I/M test lanes in both Arizona andColorado. EPA found that of the 17vehicles procured meeting these criteria15 passed a subsequent, quality-controlled IM240 test performed undermore consistent, laboratory-controlledconditions without receiving anyrepairs. Furthermore, EPA is aware of atest program which is ongoing in thestate of Colorado which has recruited anadditional 12 MIL-off, high lane-basedemission vehicles. Of these 12 potentialhigh emitters ‘‘missed’’ by OBD, EPAhas found that six were false lanefailures 11 based upon subsequent,laboratory-controlled confirmatorytesting. Among the remaining sixvehicles, EPA has found four truckswhich have an OBD design deficiencywhich the Agency was aware of prior tothis test program and which is a matterof discussion with the manufacturer. Ofthe two remaining vehicles, one was notable to have its emissions verifiedthrough Federal Test Procedure (FTP)



testing due to the lack of a four-wheeldrive dynamometer at the laboratoryperforming confirmatory testing and theother vehicle lacked sufficientdocumentation to determine the causeof the emissions problem.

Lastly, with regard to a state’s abilityto perform program evaluations afterswitching to OBD-only testing on MY1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles, EPA does not believe thatswitching to an OBD-based inspectionfor I/M prevents a state from evaluatingthe I/M program’s overall effectiveness.EPA has guidance available (EPA420–S–98–015, October 1998, ‘‘I/M ProgramEffectiveness Methodologies’’) whichdescribes methodologies which may beused to evaluate an operating I/Mprogram. Currently available techniquesinclude the use of remote sensingtechnologies and the random,independent sampling of the fleet withappropriate tailpipe testing. EPAbelieves that these techniques areadequate to evaluate OBD-based testingas well as more traditional I/Mprograms. Additionally, EPA is willingto work with states to developmethodologies which they feel are moreappropriate for use on an OBD-and/ornon-OBD-tested fleet.

D. Reducing the Testing Burden: LegalIssues


See ‘‘Summary of Proposal’’ forsection IV (B)(1) above.


Three commenters (ESP, ALA, andApplied Analysis) argued that Congressmeant for enhanced I/M programs to useboth tailpipe and OBD–I/M testing onMY 1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles. ESP further commented thatthe CAA requires ‘‘the measurement oftailpipe emissions’’ which means thatEPA cannot allow states to suspendtailpipe testing in favor of OBD–I/Mchecks because the OBD system doesnot measure emissions, but merelyinfers the potential for increasedemissions by monitoring individualcomponents and systems. Tosubstantiate its claim that the OBD–I/Mcheck does not qualify as an ‘‘emissiontest,’’ ESP cites Mail-Out #96–34a fromthe California Air Resources Board(CARB) which states that OBD systemsdo not ‘‘measure tailpipe emissionsdirectly.’’ Because EPA’s OBDrequirements reflect those adopted byCARB, ESP concludes that CARB’sstatements regarding OBD’s status as anemission test apply equally to theFederally certified OBD system.

Citing a DC Circuit Court ruling(Natural Resources Defense Council,Inc. v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125, 1143—D.C.Cir. 1994) that found EPA was requiredby the CAA to include two tests percovered vehicle in its enhanced I/Mperformance standard (i.e., an emissiontest and a visual component check), ESPconcluded that EPA’s proposal torequire only OBD–I/M testing on MY1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles was in violation of the DCCircuit Court’s ruling. ESP alsomaintained that EPA’s proposal violatesthe CAA’s requirement that I/Mprograms be centralized, based uponESP’s interpretation of the OBD systemas being inherently decentralized (i.e.,the actual monitoring system is installedon each individual vehicle) even if thescan of the OBD computer is performedat a centralized testing facility. ESPfurther argued that the NationalHighway System Designation Act of1995 (which barred EPA fromautomatically discounting the SIP creditafforded decentralized I/M programs ascompared to centralized I/M programs)did not change the CAA’s requirementthat I/M programs be centralized unlessdecentralized programs could be provento be equally effective.

ESP also maintained that Congressindicated its understanding that OBD isnot an emission test by listing bothemission testing and inspection of theonboard diagnostic system as separatelyrequired elements among the minimumprogram elements to be included in anenhanced I/M program (see CAAsections 182(c)(3)(C)(v) and (vii),‘‘Serious Areas—Enhanced VehicleInspection Program—State Program’’).ESP further suggested that this separatelisting of emission testing versus OBDinspection prevents EPA from finalizingits proposal to allow states to reduce thetesting burden on OBD-equippedvehicles.

Lastly, two commenters (ESP andEthyl Corporation) raised objectionsregarding the proprietary nature of theOBD monitoring strategies employed byindividual manufacturers. Bothcommenters argued that without a full,public disclosure of informationclaimed as confidential businessinformation by the vehiclemanufacturers when it was supplied toEPA during the certification process, thepublic cannot comment on the adequacyof EPA’s proposal to allow the OBD–I/M check to replace traditional I/Mtests on OBD-equipped vehicles.

3. Response to CommentsEPA disputes ESP’s claim that the DC

Circuit Court ruling cited is applicableto the issue of whether or not individual

enhanced I/M programs are required toperform both tailpipe emission tests andthe OBD–I/M check on MY 1996 andnewer, OBD-equipped vehicles. Thecited ruling addressed the minimumprogram elements that were to beincluded in EPA’s enhanced I/Mperformance standard under CAAsection 182(c)(3)(B)(i) but did notaddress the minimum program elementsor model year coverage required ofindividual state programs under section182(c)(3)(C). The performance standarditself does not establish minimallyrequired program elements; instead,when taken as a whole and run throughthe MOBILE emission factor model(along with local area data for suchvariables as fleet age distribution,average temperature, local fuelcharacteristics, et cetera) theperformance standard generates an area-specific emission reduction target forthe state to meet or beat. It is notunusual for a state’s program to differsubstantially from the applicableperformance standard with regard toindividual program elements andparameters. For example, while all theperformance standards in the I/M ruleinclude annual testing, the majority ofprograms adopted by the states employbiennial testing. Furthermore, while theDC Circuit Court ruling required EPA toinclude emission testing and visualcomponent checks on all subject modelyears in its enhanced I/M performancestandards (i.e., no model yearexemptions), it made no such findingwith regard to individual stateprograms. The court certainly did notsay that all state programs must includeboth OBD–I/M and tailpipe testing onall model years. In fact, the majority ofoperating I/M programs include someform of model year exemption for newand/or older vehicles. It is also routinepractice for a state program to usedifferent test types and standards ondifferent vehicles, based upon modelyear and vehicle type. As long as thestate program can get the same or betteremission reductions as would theprogram assumed in the relevantperformance standard, the state has agreat deal of flexibility in defining thespecific combination of programelements it will adopt—provided itmeets the statutory minimum in CAAsection 182(c)(3)(C). EPA thereforemaintains that states that exercise theirdiscretion to suspend existing I/M testson MY 1996 and newer, OBD–equippedvehicles in favor of the OBD–I/M checkon those same vehicles are merelyemploying the same sort of flexibilitythey currently use with regard to modelyear exemptions, test frequency, and



test type coverage, and that suchexemptions are fully consistent withsection 182(c)(3)(C).

Regarding the CAA’s intention torequire enhanced I/M programs toinclude both tailpipe emission testingand OBD–I/M inspections because‘‘emission testing’’ and ‘‘onboarddiagnostics’’ are listed separately in thelist of mandated elements for enhancedI/M programs—EPA again disputesESP’s interpretation. First, the CAAdoes not specify ‘‘tailpipe’’ emissiontesting at any point—just ‘‘emissiontesting.’’ It is EPA’s contention that atest to detect emissions from thevehicle’s evaporative system qualifies asan ‘‘emission test’’ under the Act’srequirements. Therefore, a state programwhich chooses to cover its MY 1996 andnewer, OBD-equipped vehicles with theOBD–I/M check and a separate gas capevaporative emission test can beconsidered to be conducting both an‘‘emission test’’ and an OBD–I/M checkon that particular class of vehicle.Furthermore, the Act does not state thatan emission test is required of everyvehicle subject to the I/M program,merely that the program include somelevel of emission testing. To test thisinterpretation, EPA points to theseparate requirement for OBD–I/Mtesting. If ESP is correct in maintainingthat the OBD–I/M and emission testingrequirements are separate and equalrequirements under the CAA becausethey are listed separately, and if ESPfurther maintains that emission testingis required of all subject vehicles, thenit naturally follows that OBD–I/Mtesting should be applicable to allsubject model years as well. Though thisconclusion flows from the logic of ESP’sargument, it is obviously absurd becauseit is impossible to perform an OBD–I/Minspection on vehicles that are notequipped with an OBD system to beginwith (i.e., MY 1995 and older vehicles).By the same token, EPA maintains thatthe Act does not mandate emissiontesting on all subject vehicles, just thatthe enhanced I/M program includeemission testing among the programelements employed.

Regarding ESP’s claim that the OBD–I/M check itself is not an emission test,EPA acknowledges that this is anavailable interpretation with regard tothe CARB definitions and requirementscited, but disputes the conclusion thatthis has any bearing on the flexibilitystates may exercise in theirdevelopment of I/M programs, per theabove discussion. Furthermore, EPAdoes not agree that allowing a test suchas the OBD–I/M check to replace testssuch as the tailpipe, fill-neck pressure,and purge tests reflects a ‘‘weakening’’

of Federal requirements, but believes itis more appropriately an availableflexibility for states. Based upon its pilottesting, EPA believes that it hasdemonstrated that the OBD–I/M checkis at least equivalent to the currentlyavailable I/M tailpipe and evaporativefill-neck and purge tests in terms ofreducing emissions and identifyingvehicles in need of repair.

Regarding the Act’s requirement forcentralized testing, EPA believes thatthe OBD–I/M check is a test type andnot a network design. Furthermore, theOBD–I/M check itself is clearlyconducted at the test facility—whethercentralized or decentralized—and not ineach vehicle as the MIL is illuminated.

Lastly, with regard to the claim thatfull disclosure of OBD certificationinformation is necessary for the publicto evaluate EPA’s proposal and for thesuccessful implementation of OBD–I/Min general, EPA points out that itfinalized its Service Information Rule onAugust 9, 1995 (60 FR 40474). This rulerequires that vehicle manufacturersmake available to aftermarket serviceproviders any and all informationneeded to make use of a vehicle’semission control diagnostic system. EPAis currently drafting an NPRM topropose changes to the 1995 regulationsto further improve the accessibility ofservice and repair information for theautomotive aftermarket and I/Mprograms. We expect the proposal to beissued in the Spring of 2001.Furthermore, while it is true that thereis some variance from manufacturer tomanufacturer in the design of theirsystems, EPA believes that all of theinformation needed to make use of orcomment on the OBD system is or willbe covered under EPA’s ServiceInformation Rule as described above.

In response to the comments EPAreceived from Ethyl Corporation, whichalleged that a greater volume ofinformation than is currently availableis required for the public to comment onEPA’s OBD–I/M proposal, the Agencydoes not believe that OBD technology’suse in I/M raises informationavailability issues separate from ourobligations under the ServiceInformation Rule described above.Furthermore, today’s action does notintroduce the OBD–I/M check as anI/M test; rather, today’s action providesstates greater flexibility with regard tothe OBD–I/M requirements originallyestablished in 1996. Arguably, Ethyl’scomments would have been moreappropriate to that rulemaking, asopposed to the current action. Inaddition, in a separate action Ethyl haspetitioned the Agency regarding ourCAP 2000 and Heavy-Duty diesel

rulemakings to compel the availabilityof information similar to the OBDcertification information requested hereon similar (if not identical) issues. It isEPA’s intention to consider thiscomment in its response to that petitionand in the context of a planned NPRMin the Spring of 2001 which willaddress service information availability.

Additionally, EPA is working withautomobile manufacturers and WeberState University to develop a Web Sitedesigned specifically for use by I/Mprograms that will provide easy accessfor states to obtain manufacturerinformation of particular interest to I/Mprograms. Examples of the informationthat will be found on this Web sitewhen it is launched include (but is notlimited to) diagnostic link connectorlocations and technical service bulletinsfor vehicles with readiness problems.

It should be noted that as with anynew testing element, additional issuesmay be identified in the course ofimplementation. EPA is committed tocontinually address new issuesregarding OBD–I/M implementationafter this rulemaking goes into effect,and as appropriate. EPA will alsocontinue to work with manufacturersand I/M programs to ensure that theinformation needed by states tosuccessfully implement the OBD–I/Mcheck is available to them.

E. Retaining the Gas Cap Test


While EPA’s pilot testing supportsallowing states to streamline theirtesting programs with regard to MY1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles, it also supports EPA’srecommendation that states currentlyperforming the gas cap pressure test onMY 1996 and newer vehicles retain thattest, even after mandatory OBD–I/Minspections are begun.


Seven commenters (New Jersey,Illinois, Pennsylvania, Missouri,Colorado, Texas, and ESP) supportedretaining a separate gas cap check thatis conducted in addition to the OBD–I/M check. Two commenters (AIAM anda private citizen) maintained that thegas cap test should be suspendedbecause: (1) It is redundant on vehiclesequipped with OBD evaporativeemission monitors; (2) there have beendocumented instances of problems withgas cap testing equipment; and (3) EPAdoes not have data to quantify thebenefits of conducting the gas cap checkin addition to the conventional OBD–I/M check.




EPA’s decision to recommend thatstates retain the gas cap check inconjunction with the OBD–I/Minspection is based on three factors:

(1) The gas cap pressure test isdesigned to find leaking gas caps withan equivalent hole size of less than0.010 inches in diameter which isconsiderably more stringent than the0.040 inch leak that OBD is designed tomonitor. Although a stricter OBDevaporative leak detection threshold of0.020 inches in diameter will be phased-in by MY 2002, this is still less stringentthan the current gas cap pressure test.

(2) Data from the 30 vehicleevaporative emission pilot study showsthat vehicles with an induced leak inthe gas cap of 0.020 inches in diameteremitted significantly more evaporativeemissions than the certificationstandard. This leaking cap was notdetected with an OBD leak monitordesigned to meet the 0.040 inchdiameter leak detection standard.

(3) Data from the Wisconsin I/Mprogram shows a much higher incidenceof gas caps which failed the I/M gas capcheck than were detected by the OBDevaporative emission monitor.

EPA acknowledges that more test datawould be desirable to determine the costeffectiveness of conducting the gas captest in conjunction with the OBD–I/Mcheck. If more data are collected whichsuggest that the newest OBD evaporativeemission monitors (i.e., the 0.020 inchleak monitors) are capable of adequatelydetecting the vast majority of leaking gascaps detected by the gas cap pressuretest, then EPA may recommend thatstates discontinue the separate gas cappressure test. However, at present, EPAfinds the gas cap pressure test to be asimple, accurate, and time-efficientsupplement to the OBD–I/M check.Therefore, EPA stands by its originalrecommendation that states currentlyconducting the gas cap pressure test onMY 1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles continue to conduct this test,even after the OBD–I/M check becomesmandatory. To claim gas cap testingcredit under MOBILE5, therefore, stateswill need to continue conducting thegas cap test, or adjust their credit claimsaccordingly. In addition, MOBILE6,when it is released, will allow statesthat retain the gas cap test on OBD-equipped vehicles to model additionalemission reduction credit for the gas cappressure test in addition to that assessedfor the OBD–I/M check alone.

Lastly, concerning the comment thatthere have been documented instancesof problems with the gas cap test: thiscomment is based on a single instance

of a flawed design for a single gas capadapter and was limited to a singlemanufacturer’s vehicles. The adapterhas subsequently been redesigned andproven to be acceptable for the vehiclesin question.

F. OBD–I/M Credit Modeling


EPA proposed to revise the OBDsections of the I/M performancestandards to indicate that for modelingpurposes, the OBD–I/M testing segmentof the performance standard overlapsbut does not add to the credit alreadyassessed for testing MY 1996 and newervehicles. Furthermore, prior to releaseof MOBILE6, the credit from OBD–I/Mtesting would utilize (as opposed tobeing added to) the credit alreadyassessed for the testing of MY 1996 andnewer vehicles in the states’ I/M SIPs.Therefore, with the exception of the gascap test, traditional I/M tests could bedropped on MY 1996 and newervehicles in favor of OBD–I/M testing onthose same vehicles without affecting anarea’s ability to meet the applicableperformance standard. Effectively, thismeant that for areas currentlyperforming IM240 on MY 1996 andnewer vehicles, the credit for OBD–I/Mtesting would equal IM240 (at whatevercutpoint the state was using on MY1996 and newer vehicles prior to theswitch to OB–-I/M testing), while forareas using the idle test on these samevehicles, the credit for OBD–I/M testingwould equal the idle test (again, atapplicable cutpoints). This ‘‘no netincrease/no net loss’’ credit approachwas specifically intended to be aninterim modeling methodology, to beused only with the MOBILE5 model(which does not include the capabilityto model OBD–I/M checks directly),prior to mandatory use of MOBILE6 andsubsequent mobile source emissionfactor models (which will include theOBD–I/M check as a separate, creditedI/M program element).


A significant number of commentswere received on the issue of how muchSIP credit should be accorded to theOBD–I/M test prior to release andmandatory use of the MOBILE6emission factor model. The minority ofcommenters on this issue (five states)supported the proposed policy and thedegree of their support varied. Three ofthose five—Illinois, Missouri, and NewYork—unequivocally supported nocredit loss for the OBD–I/M check beingperformed in lieu of tailpipe testing asan interim modeling methodology priorto release and mandatory use of the

MOBILE6 emission factor model. NewYork stated that the policy rewardsstates which elected to use morestringent tests. Two other states—Utahand Colorado—tied their support for thepolicy to MOBILE6. Utah onlysupported the credit if MOBILE6 isreleased on time (i.e., by late January2001), but otherwise supported OBD–I/M testing being afforded an IM240level of credit for all programs to usewhen performing SIP and conformitymodeling. Colorado supported theproposed credit policy but only untilenough new data is gathered tosubstantiate a more specific level ofOBD–I/M credit. Colorado is concernedthat MOBILE6’s OBD–I/M creditassumptions are inflated because of theState’s findings from its own studies ofOBD–I/M effectiveness (see discussionof this issue under ‘‘Reducing theTesting Burden’’).

The majority of comments on OBD–I/M credit were adverse to EPA’sproposed approach. Most supportedOBD–I/M credit at a level higher thanproposed. Eight states and STAPPA/ALAPCO commented explicitly that theOBD–I/M check should be given morecredit, with the majority citing creditequivalent to that afforded the IM240tailpipe test as being an appropriatelevel of credit for consideration for allI/M programs. Several commentersnoted that the proposed ‘‘no net gain/nonet loss’’ policy is inequitable becausecertain areas have no base I/M tailpipetest upon which to base credit, andthose with idle tests would receive noNOX credit, although EPA’s own pilottesting confirms that OBD–I/M testingdoes, indeed, produce NOX emissionreduction benefits. One state commentereven suggested that credit exceeding theIM240 level might be afforded stateswhich use anti-tampering (ATP) checksin addition to the OBD–I/M check onMY 1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles. Another state commenternoted that not only IM240 credit, butalso full evaporative system testingcredit should be given for doing theOBD–I/M check. In addition to the statecommenters, two automotive industrygroups also submitted adversecomments to the credit proposal. AAMand NADA noted that the OBD–I/Mcheck should be given ‘‘enhanced’’ orIM240 level credit. One felt this wasnecessary for equity reasons becausemany areas will not actually useMOBILE6 for several years while theother noted that interim credit may notbe necessary if MOBILE6 is released onschedule. Only one private citizensubmitted comment, noting that OBD–I/M testing should be given up to two



12 EPA agrees with STAPPA/ALAPCO’sobservation, and wishes to further stress that stateswill ultimately have to account for this creditadjustment between MOBILE5 and MOBILE6 intheir attainment and Rate-of-Progress SIPs.

13 By ‘‘IM240’’ EPA means IM240 at finalcutpoints for MY 1996 and newer vehicles.

times the IM240 level of credit (thoughthe reason for this claim was unclear).

Miscellaneous comments were alsosubmitted on the OBD–I/M creditproposal which neither supported norcontested the proposed ‘‘no net gain/nonet loss’’ interim modeling methodologyproposed for use under MOBILE5.Comments by three states andNESCAUM reflected concerns aboutvarious modeling issues. NESCAUMexpressed concern that MOBILE6 willnot allow the user the option ofapplying traditional tailpipe testing tomodel MY 1996 and newer, OBD-equipped vehicles because the default I/M option for those vehicles is either theOBD–I/M check, the gas cap test, orboth. California wanted EPA to confirmthat it can continue to use the OBDcredit assumptions already included inits alternative, California-specificEMFAC emission factor model. NewJersey expressed concern that theproposal is arbitrary and would like touse OBD–I/M testing solely for itsevaporative system testing capabilities,which the State argues should receivefull evaporative system credit. NewJersey further maintained that EPA’sOBD–I/M SIP crediting proposal shouldnot be finalized until after MOBILE6 hasbeen fully reviewed and modified (ifnecessary). Alaska indicated that it readthe proposal to mean that states whichbegin OBD–I/M testing earlier thanrequired are not allowed to claim creditfor such testing unless they also performtailpipe and evaporative system testing.Maryland expressed concern about thetime it is taking to release MOBILE6 andthe impact the release schedule ishaving on states’ ability to develop SIPs.

With regard to evaporative systemtesting and credits, ESP supported theproposed retention of gas cap testing,and added that it also wanted EPA toconsider the potential for future,additional credit for as-yet-undefined,non-OBD-based, alternative evaporativesystem tests. Waekon also expressedconcern with EPA’s crediting of OBD–I/M inspections and its implications fornon-OBD-based evaporative systemtesting of OBD-equipped vehicles. Inparticular, Waekon was concerned thatEPA’s crediting proposal and theMOBILE6 emission factor model do nottake into account the fact that the OBDevaporative system monitoringrequirement was phased in over MY1996–99, so that not all MY 1996 andnewer, OBD-equipped vehicles actuallymonitor for evaporative systemdeficiencies. Waekon argued that theamount of credit afforded OBD–I/Mtesting for evaporative systemmonitoring should either be reduced, orthat additional credit should be allowed

for states that conduct non-OBD-basedevaporative system testing of MY 1996and newer, OBD-equipped vehicles inconjunction with the OBD–I/M check(based upon the evaporative systemmonitoring phase-in issue discussedabove).

3. Response to CommentsWhile some commenters supported

the proposal that states see ‘‘no net gain/no net loss’’ of credit for OBD–I/Mtesting in the interim period beforeMOBILE6 is available and required, themajority of commenters supportedproviding OBD–I/M testing a higherlevel of credit which could be claimedequally by all states performing theOBD–I/M check. Most of thosecommenters advocating more credit forthe OBD–I/M check expressed the beliefthat credit equivalent to that granted tothe IM240 tailpipe test would be anappropriate level of credit for the OBD–I/M check. EPA was particularlyinterested to learn of two potentialissues with the current credit proposal:(1) That it does not account for areaswhich have no previous tailpipeprogram upon which to base the ‘‘no netgain/no net loss’’ credit approach, and(2) the inequity that arises with regardto states doing idle testing, which wouldbe effectively denied NOX credit fortheir OBD–I/M testing (at least untilMOBILE6 is available for state use).

In its September 20, 2000 NPRM, theAgency noted that the proposed ‘‘no netgain/no net loss’’ credit proposal wasintentionally conservative and designedto anticipate changes in I/M programassumptions such as in-usedeterioration which will be reflected inMOBILE6. Based upon the equityconcerns raised by many of thecommenters, the Agency now believesthat it is reasonable to allow states toclaim IM240, fill-neck pressure, andpurge test credit under MOBILE5 duringthe interim period between the releaseof MOBILE6 and its mandated use.While it is known that modeling total I/M performance with MOBILE6 isexpected to show a net credit loss fromI/M compared to what MOBILE5currently shows (due to numerouschanges in in-use deterioration rates),we acknowledge that trying to anticipatesome of the MOBILE6 change outsidethe context of the other changesincluded in the model is contrary toprevious policy with regard totransitioning between models and leadsto inequitable results. Furthermore,separate from the in-use deteriorationissue cited above, the Agency believesthat its pilot testing demonstrates thatOBD–I/M testing is at least equal to theIM240, fill-neck pressure, and purge

tests in terms of comparative emissionreduction potential.

It should be stressed that EPA’soriginal proposal was not based uponany concern with the OBD–I/M check’sperformance relative to other I/M tests;we are confident that the OBD–I/Mcheck will reliably achieve significantemissions reductions (in addition toserving as a pollution preventionmeasure, as discussed elsewhere). It isalso important to note that STAPPA/ALAPCO indicated in its comments thata reconciliation of overall I/M creditshould be done once MOBILE6 isreleased.12 In response to commentsreceived, EPA believes it would beinappropriate to begin to phase-in oneaspect of MOBILE6’s many changesahead of others and agrees that aseparate process (such as the oneSTAPPA/ALAPCO suggests) is a moreappropriate venue which will place I/Mchanges in context with other changesincorporated in the MOBILE6 model.Therefore, considering that MOBILE6 isexpected to be released soon after thisrule takes effect—and considering themajority of commenters requestinghigher, and more generally applicablecredit—EPA has decided it isappropriate to allow states to claimcredit equivalent to IM240,13 fill-neckpressure, and purge test credit for theOBD–I/M check as modeled underMOBILE5.

With respect to commenters’ requeststhat the OBD–I/M check also beassigned credit under MOBILE5comparable to that received for gas cap,fill-neck pressure, and/or purgeevaporative system testing, EPA agreesthat credit under MOBILE5 is justifiedfor the evaporative system fill-neckpressure test and the evaporative systempurge test, but believes that the gas cappressure test should still be performedby those areas wishing to claim creditfor the gas cap pressure test (for reasonsexplained under the discussion of‘‘Retaining the Gas Cap Test’’).Furthermore, the gas cap pressure testcredit will be additive to the OBD–I/Mcredit under both MOBILE5 andMOBILE6.

With regard to the request that theOBD–I/M check also be assigned thecredit associated with the ATP checkunder MOBILE5 in addition to thetailpipe and evaporative system creditalready discussed, EPA finds that suchadditional credit is not warranted.



While the OBD–I/M check has beendemonstrated to be sufficiently rigorousto identify the failed or missingcomponents that would be covered by atypical ATP check, the MOBILE5 modelalready assumes that the IM240 has thesame ability to detect missingcomponents, and therefore alreadyfactors ATP check credit into the creditassigned the IM240. Allowing states tocredit the OBD–I/M check underMOBILE5 as being equal to the IM240plus the ATP check would result indouble-counting credit. EPA thereforerejects the request to include ATP creditin addition to the credit otherwiseallowed the OBD–I/M check underMOBILE5.

With respect to the miscellaneouscomments received regarding OBD–I/Mcrediting under MOBILE6, EPA isworking to address many of thecommenters’ concerns separate fromthis action. For example, the Agency isconsidering the need states may have formodeling tailpipe testing of MY 1996and newer, OBD-equipped vehiclesunder MOBILE6. Special proceduresmay be approved after the release ofMOBILE6 to deal with this concern.Concerning California’s request thatEPA address whether the State can usethe OBD credit assumptions containedin its alternative, California-specificEMFAC emission factor model series,EPA has a separate approval process inplace to address the EMFAC modelissue and will address this request inthe appropriate forum. ConcerningAlaska’s reading of the proposal assomehow disallowing OBD–I/M creditfor states that start OBD–I/M testingearlier than required who also suspendor do not add traditional I/M testing ofOBD-equipped vehicles, EPA concludesthat this belief is based upon amisunderstanding of the proposal.Today’s action affirmatively allowsstates to suspend traditional I/M tests onMY 1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles in favor of OBD-only testing onthose same vehicles even beforerequired to do so by today’s action.Furthermore, such states may claimIM240, fill-neck pressure, and purge testcredit under MOBILE5 or the OBD–I/Mcredit that will be available underMOBILE6.

Waekon Corporation and others havesuggested that states should receiveadditional credit if they conduct non-OBD-based evaporative system tests inaddition to the gas cap pressure test onOBD-equipped vehicles that are either‘‘not ready’’ for the evaporative systemmonitor or those vehicles for which theOBD evaporative system monitoringrequirement does not apply due tophase-in issues. Alternatively, it has

been suggested that the level ofevaporative emission credit afforded theOBD–I/M check under either MOBILE5or MOBILE6 should be reduced toaccount for the fact that some MY 1996–98 light-duty vehicles and trucks are notequipped with evaporative emissionmonitors during the 20, 40, 90 percentphase-in allowance period that coversthose model years. In response to this,EPA points out that the MOBILE6 modelwill take the phase-in of the OBDevaporative system monitoringrequirement into account in assessingthe evaporative credit attributable to theOBD–I/M test. MOBILE6 will also allowstates to claim additional credit forconducting the fill-neck pressure test onthat portion of the OBD-equipped fleetthat can be tested in this manner.However, while EPA does not prohibitany I/M program from conductingfunctional evaporative system checks onOBD-equipped vehicles, the Agencyalso does not believe it is reasonable torequire such alternative tests forvehicles which are ‘‘not ready’’ for theevaporative system monitor at the timeof the OBD–I/M test, or for vehicleswhich do not have OBD evaporativeemission monitors, particularly duringthe phase-in model years of 1996–98.The rationale for this position is basedon the minimal air quality benefitsgained from testing a small subset ofvehicles, and the untestable nature ofthese vehicles. These concerns arediscussed below. If a state wishes toconduct a functional test they shouldconsult the Agency who will in turndetermine the acceptability of thefunctional test in the I/M environmentand credit it appropriately.

EPA does not require functional testson OBD-equipped vehicles for tworeasons:

(1) The incremental emissionreduction benefit resulting from testinga fraction of MY 1996–98 vehicles notequipped with evaporative emissionmonitors, or those vehicles ‘‘not ready’’for the evaporative system monitor atthe time of the OBD–I/M test, is likelyto be extremely small given the lowlikelihood of evaporative emissionfailures for this small subset of vehicles.Since the introduction of vehiclesmanufactured to comply with theenhanced evaporative emissionstandard in 1996, and the OnboardRefueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR)standard in 1998, vehicles have betterand more reliable purge systems, bettercomponent durability obtained throughmaterial changes, and better engineeredcomponent connectors, making themless likely to fail.

(2) With the exception of the gas cappressure test, most I/M programs do not

currently conduct functionalevaporative emission tests on non-OBD-equipped vehicles because of theintrusive and time-consuming nature ofthe test(s). EPA therefore believes that—with the exception of the gas cappressure test—it is very unlikely non-OBD-based functional evaporativesystem testing will be well received forOBD-equipped vehicles, where thepractical hurdles to performing the testare even higher. Specifically, unless anOBD-equipped vehicle has anevaporative emission ‘‘service port,’’MY 1996 and later vehicles which aredesigned to meet the enhancedevaporative emission standard are evenmore difficult to conduct a functionalI/M evaporative emission test on thanpre-1996 model year vehicles. Shouldan alternative method be developed toconduct I/M evaporative emission testson MY 1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles, EPA will examine the viabilityof the alternative and make creditdeterminations appropriately.

Concerning New Jersey’s suggestionthat states be allowed to use the OBD–I/M test exclusively as a replacement foran evaporative system test before fullOBD–I/M testing is otherwise requiredof the OBD-equipped fleet, EPA againpoints out that nothing in today’s actionprohibits such an approach. However,because the MIL will illuminate as aresult of problems related to exhaustemission performance as well asevaporative emission performance, sucha program would only selectivelycorrect problems causing the MIL toilluminate. In some instances, if notcorrected by the traditional I/M programrepairs, the MIL may remainilluminated. We expect programsmaking early, partial use of the OBDsystem will need to provide consumerswith extra information describing thispartial use during a phase-in period sothat, once the mandatory program isfully implemented, it will be clear thatall problems causing MIL illuminationneed to be corrected.

G. OBD–I/M Failure Criteria

1. Summary of ProposalEPA proposed to simplify the DTC-

based OBD–I/M failure criteria toinclude any DTC that results in the MILbeing commanded on. Additionally, inthe event that the OBD scan revealsDTCs that have been set but for whichthe MIL has not been commanded on,EPA recommended that the motorist beadvised that a problem may be pendingbut we did not propose to require thatthe vehicle be failed (unless other, non-DTC-based failure criteria have beenmet, such as a failed bulb check).




Nine commenters supported thesimplified failure criteria proposed inthe NPRM (Vermont, Missouri, Georgia,AAM, NADA, ASA, ESP, and ALA)while three commenters (Vermont,Illinois, and MEMA) expressedreservations regarding various aspects ofthe proposal. While Vermont generallysupported the proposal, the Stateopposed EPA’s recommendation thatpending DTCs be printed on the testreport of vehicles that otherwise passthe test, indicating the possibleconfusion this would cause themotorist. Illinois opposed failingvehicles based upon the bulb check,fearing that lane inspectors wouldconfuse the MIL with other dashboardlights. MEMA suggested that EPA’sproposed simplified failure criteriawould result in failing vehicles for non-emission related malfunctions.

Two additional commenters (NewYork and New Hampshire) alsosupported the simplified failure criteria,but pointed out potential conflicts withother aspects of the OBD–I/M checkrequirements. Specifically, EPA wasasked to determine: (1) Whether thebulb check conflicts with 40 CFR85.2222 (a) which requires that theOBD–I/M check be conducted with thekey-on/engine-running; and, (2) whether40 CFR 51.357(d), which suggests that adamaged DLC would be grounds forrejecting a vehicle, conflicts with 40CFR 85.2207(b), which indicates that adamaged DLC shall be grounds forfailing the OBD–I/M check.


Concerning Illinois’ objection to thebulb check, although EPA recognizesthat poorly trained lane personnel maybecome confused by the number ofpossible dashboard lights, the Agencydoes not believe this is likely providedtraining of lane personnel is adequate.Furthermore, EPA believes that allowinglane personnel to ignore whether or notthe MIL is working establishes a badprecedent with regard to how seriouslythe general public responds to MIL-related issues and could diminish theemission control potential of the OBDsystem. Therefore, at this time, EPA hasdecided to require that the bulb checkremain mandatory as described in theNPRM.

Regarding MEMA’s claim that EPA’ssimplified failure criteria will result invehicles being failed for non-emissionrelated malfunctions, EPA does notbelieve that such will be the case. Thewhole purpose of the OBD system is tomonitor components and systemswhich, should they deteriorate or

malfunction, may result in emissionsexceeding 1.5 times the vehicle’scertification standards. When a DTC isset and a MIL illuminated, that is anindication that the deterioration ormalfunction detected—if notcorrected—may lead to emissionsexceeding 1.5 times the certificationstandards. DTCs and MIL illuminationare, by definition, indicators thatemission-related repairs are needed.Furthermore, the OBD system, bywarning the motorist of conditions thatmay lead to elevated emissions, canitself be considered an emission controldevice. Checks of the OBD system viathe bulb check and electronic scan ofthe onboard computer are thereforenecessary to ensure that the OBD systemitself is operating properly.

Concerning whether or not theprinting of pending DTCs would resultin confusing the motorist, neither EPAnor Vermont has experience in this area.Because we do not know the likelihoodof this potential confusion occurring,the Agency is revising itsrecommendation to allow individualstates to determine for themselveswhether or not to provide the motoristwith a printout of pending DTCs.

Concerning the possible conflictsidentified in the regulatory text, EPAhas considered both of these commentsand the rule text has been modified toensure that there is no conflict in thefinal regulation on either of these issues.

H. OBD–I/M Rejection Criteria


In reviewing data from Wisconsin’sOBD–I/M program, EPA found that asmall number of vehicles arriving at thetest lane (between 1–6% of the OBD-equipped fleet, depending upon modelyear) were presented for testing withunset readiness codes which wouldnormally be grounds for rejection underexisting OBD–I/M rejection criteria. Ininvestigating the issue, EPA found thatthe majority of vehicles with unsetreadiness codes were limited to theearliest of the OBD-equipped modelyears, and that the cause of the vehicle’sunreadiness was largely beyond thecontrol of the motorist. To avoidunnecessarily inconveniencingmotorists as EPA works withmanufacturers to resolve the readinessissues with these vehicles, the Agencyproposed to allow states the flexibilityto permit MY 1996–2000 vehicles withtwo or fewer unset readiness codes, andMY 2001 and newer vehicles with onlyone unset readiness code to completetheir full OBD–I/M inspection withoutbeing rejected. These vehicles wouldnot be exempt from other elements of

the OBD–I/M check. EPA specified thatthe complete MIL check and scan wouldstill be run in all cases, and that thevehicle would still be failed if the MILwas commanded on or any other failurecriteria were met. Furthermore, underthe proposal, the vehicle wouldcontinue to be rejected if it was MY1996–2000 and had three or more unsetreadiness codes or was MY 2001 ornewer and had two or more unsetreadiness codes. The proposal reflecteda FACA OBD workgrouprecommendation.

The proposed readiness exemptionswere intended to reduce the potentialfor customer inconvenience duringOBD–I/M testing. The environmentalimpact of the proposal was deemednegligible, based upon the small numberof vehicles anticipated to be involved(i.e., the subset of OBD-equippedvehicles in I/M programs with no DTCsand two or fewer unset readiness codesat the time of testing), the likelihoodthat at least some of the readiness codeswill be set in time for subsequent OBD–I/M checks, and the fact that an unsetreadiness code is not itself an indicationof high emissions.

It should be pointed out that a certainlevel of unset readiness codes are a partof normal OBD operation. For example,when a battery is disconnected duringbattery replacement or other repair, allreadiness monitors are temporarily resetto ‘‘not ready.’’ One of the purposes ofthe readiness code for I/M programs isto help determine whether an attempthas been made to fraudulently clearDTCs by disconnecting the battery priorto testing. EPA does not believe that thelimited readiness exemptions allowedby today’s action will interfere withOBD’s ability to signal such activitybecause the number of unset readinesscodes in instances of attempted fraudwould almost certainly exceed thelimited number allowed under theexemption.

In conjunction with the proposal, EPAalso solicited public comment onalternative approaches to addressing thereadiness issue—in particular, whethervehicles with unset readiness flagsshould receive a traditional tailpipeand/or evaporative system test andwhether different tests should berequired in lieu of the OBD–I/M testdepending upon which readiness flaghas not been set.

2. Summary of CommentsComments on the readiness

exemption proposal were received from11 state agencies, five organizedassociations, one automobilemanufacturer, one private citizen, andone I/M test industry representative. Of



the 19 commenters, seven supported theproposal for readiness exemptions butexplicitly opposed back-up testing ofvehicles with unset readiness codes:three states (New Hampshire, Vermont,and Georgia), three organizedassociations (AAMA, AIAM, andNADA), and one automobilemanufacturer (Mitsubishi).

Four commenters (Illinois, Missouri,Pennsylvania, and AAA) supported theproposal for readiness code exemptionsbut expressed a desire for back-uptesting for vehicles that exceed theproposed exemption limit. In its specificcomments, Missouri indicated that itonly supported the use of the IM240 andgas cap test as back-up tests, but did notsupport the use of other test types asback-up tests unless such tests werediscounted based upon their poorcorrelation to the certification test.Missouri also suggested the possible useof back-up testing for vehicles withunset catalyst codes as a means forensuring consumer protection,especially with regard to warrantycoverage. AAA expressed concern aboutthe rejection of vehicles with unsetreadiness codes that are not coveredunder the readiness exemption, citingthe inconvenience and expenseassociated with having a dealershipperform driving to set the readinesscodes. Pennsylvania expressed thedesire that states be allowed thediscretion to conduct back-up testing toaddress the readiness issue with thefollowing caveats: (1) Such back-uptesting should not be applied todecentralized programs, and (2) thereshould be no loss of credit for thosestates that opt not to perform back-uptesting.

Five commenters (New Jersey,Colorado, California, ALA, and PeterMcClintock of Applied Analysis)opposed the readiness exemptionproposal and supported the use of back-up testing for all vehicles with unsetreadiness codes. In its specificcomments, New Jersey supported dualtesting and using the OBD–I/M check asan enhancement to traditional tailpipetests, identifying the readiness issue asa reason why the OBD–I/M check alonecannot be used to replace tailpipe tests.Specific comments from Colorado calledfor more flexibility and for the final ruleto address: (1) The readiness on retestissue, and (2) the potential use of back-up IM240 testing at the time of retest.ALA cited manufacturer-to-manufacturer OBD strategy differenceswith regard to readiness as a deficiencywith the OBD concept. Peter McClintockof Applied Analysis claimed thatunready vehicles have statisticallyhigher emissions (see discussion and

response under ‘‘Reducing the TestingBurden’’ earlier in this action) andcalled for EPA to study the differencebetween advisory-only versusmandatory-repair OBD–I/M programswith regard to readiness variance andthe emission impact of exempting somenot-ready vehicles. McClintock alsorequested that data collectionrequirements proposed for deletion berestored and that EPA add additionalrequirements to track readiness data.

Lastly, two commenters (Alaska andMaryland) raised more general issuesrelated to the rejection criteria for theOBD–I/M check. In its specificcomments, Alaska called the proposedreadiness exemption a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach and indicated that itwants the flexibility to do a tailpipe-only test on MY 1996–97 vehicles dueto DLC location and readinessinconsistencies among vehicles in thosemodel years. The State also indicatedthat it wants the flexibility to tailor theOBD–I/M check based upon thepollutant a state needs to address (citingas an example the desire that CO-onlyareas be allowed to ignore evaporativesystem readiness). Maryland, in turn,requested more information andguidance with regard to drive cycles,exercising monitors, and settingreadiness codes, while also claimingthat most unset readiness flags are forevaporative system and catalystmonitors, which means that states couldultimately have problems meeting theirclean air goals. Maryland also requestedinformation concerning the names andnumbers of vehicles that have readinessproblems being addressed by themanufacturers.

3. Response to CommentsAs a preface for the discussion to

follow, EPA wants to make clear that theflexibility allowed by today’s action isintended exclusively to avoidinconveniencing motorists for vehicleconditions that are beyond their control,and that are currently the subject ofdiscussion between EPA and variousmanufacturers and in some cases mayresult in potential enforcement action.The purpose of today’s action is not torelieve manufacturers of theirresponsibility to design and market OBDsystems that comply with existing OBDcertification requirements. To helpemphasize this point, EPA clarifies herethat the obligations of the automobilemanufacturers with regard to OBDequipment are specified in regulatorysection 40 CFR 86.094–17(e)(1):‘‘Control of Air Pollution From NewMotor Vehicles and New Motor VehicleEngines: Regulations Requiring On-Board Diagnostic Systems on 1994 and

Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehiclesand Light-Duty Trucks,’’ whichimposes, among other things, theobligation to design, build and certifyOBD systems that: ‘‘record code(s)indicating the status of the emissioncontrol system. Absent the presence ofany fault codes, separate status codesshall be used to identify correctlyfunctioning emission control systemsand those emission control systemswhich need further vehicle operation tobe fully evaluated.’’ In promulgatingthese requirements on February 19,1993 the Agency stated: ‘‘The readinesscode will ensure I/M testing personneland service technicians thatmalfunction codes have not beencleared since the last OBD check of thevehicle’s emission-related controlsystems. This code will be essential* * * since I/M personnel must be surethat the OBD system has sufficient timeto completely check all components andsystems. The readiness code is alsocrucial for indicating to servicepersonnel whether any repairs havebeen conducted properly.’’ Nothing intoday’s action in any way changes orotherwise impacts these obligations onthe part of vehicle manufacturers. Infact, EPA has already initiated severalinvestigations which may result inenforcement actions related to theserequirements.

In addition to the certificationrequirements for OBD systemsdiscussed above, EPA separatelypromulgated test procedures to be usedby state I/M programs when conductingthe OBD–I/M check. These I/M-centeredOBD requirements were originallypromulgated back in 1996, and are therequirements that are being amended bytoday’s action. With regard to readiness,the procedures promulgated back in1996 required that all readiness codesbe set to ‘‘ready’’ prior to conducting avalid OBD–I/M inspection. At the timethis requirement was established, theearliest OBD-equipped model yearswere just entering the market and EPAhad no experience with regard to howpractical this readiness requirementwould be in practice. Since that time,however, EPA has conducted severalstudies of OBD–I/M effectiveness andassorted implementation issues (asdiscussed in the preamble to theSeptember 20, 2000 NPRM and the TSDfor today’s action) and has found thatflexibility is needed with regard to thereadiness requirement to help preventneedlessly inconveniencing motorists.Although the number of OBD-equippedvehicles with unset readiness codes atthe time of initial testing is small evenwithout the flexibility allowed by



today’s action (i.e., 1–6% of the OBD-equipped fleet, depending on modelyear), as a policy matter, EPA finds itreasonable to provide states with thelimited flexibility proposed in itsSeptember 20, 2000 NPRM and finalizedby today’s action. This flexibilityapplies to I/M programs only, and doesnot explicitly or implicitly impactmanufacturers or their obligations withregard to OBD equipment. As notedabove, manufacturers continue to haveany and all liabilities previouslyestablished before today’s action withregard to the performance of their OBDsystems.

With regard to the use of back-uptesting in the case of vehicles which donot meet the revised readiness criteria,the agency believes that proper use ofthis option is limited. Review of theWisconsin pilot data indicates that atmost 1 to 2 percent of the OBD-equipped fleet would qualify asexceeding the ‘‘not ready’’ criteriapromulgated in today’s final rule, andthat number is declining. While theAgency believes that the best method fordealing with these vehicles is to rejectthem and allow the unset readinessmonitors to be subsequently set, the useof state discretion in dealing with thisissue is allowed. However, the Agencyadvises areas adopting back-up testingto address the readiness issue that theyneed to monitor the frequency of suchback-up testing to ensure that motoristsare not purposefully clearing codesprior to testing in an attempt to avoidthe OBD–I/M inspection.

EPA emphasizes that the purpose oftoday’s action is to provide someflexibility to vehicle owners and stateprograms without impairing the overallenvironmental benefits achieved byOBD implementation in I/M programs.Because manufacturers are still requiredto certify their vehicles as meeting allreadiness code requirements, and areequally responsible for the properoperation of their OBD systems in-use,EPA does not believe that the flexibilityadded by today’s rule will affect thevalue of the OBD system for both thevehicle owner and State I/M programs.It is recognized that fully functionalOBD systems may periodically displaynot-ready codes when presented at anI/M test. Nevertheless, EPA believes thata fully functional system will eventuallydetect any problems in vehicle emissioncontrol systems and that such problemswould certainly be detected during thenext I/M inspection. If the system is notfunctional as a result of an inherentdefect within the particular vehiclemodel or engine family then EPAanticipates such functional issues will

be corrected either by a manufacturer orthrough EPA’s enforcement programs.

In response to commenters supportingthe readiness exemption proposal butopposing the use of back-up tailpipetesting, the Agency agrees. EPA believesthat many of the current issuesassociated with implementation of theOBD–I/M check reflect a learning curvewith respect to OBD, given that OBDIIhas only been a universal requirementfor light-duty vehicles and trucks soldin this country since 1996. The Agencybelieves that increased familiarity withthe technology on the part of the testingand repair communities as well aspublic education and outreach effortswill go a long way toward mitigatingmany of these issues. EPA thereforehopes that the states and I/M testingcontractors will perform diligently inexecuting OBD–I/M programs andresolve manageable issues inconsultation with EPA and themanufacturers.

In response to Missouri and othercommenters advocating the use of back-up testing for vehicles exceeding theproposed readiness exemption criteria,EPA reiterates its position that statesmay use discretion in dealing with thisissue and, thus, the flexibility exists fora state to use back-up testing with nochange in credit. However, if a statefeels it should receive additional creditfor conducting back-up testing of anytype, the state must make the case toEPA for additional credit bydemonstrating and determining theamount of additional credit it claims,which EPA will evaluate through theSIP approval process.

In response to specific commentsfrom AAA concerning theinconvenience of setting readinesscodes for non-exempted, ‘‘not ready’’vehicles, EPA has attempted to identifythose vehicles that may have specificissues with readiness setting and isworking with manufacturers to addressthose vehicles. Those vehicles whichfall outside of the category of identifiedproblem vehicles should experienceproper readiness setting during normalvehicle operation and should notrequire special exemptions beyondthose already proposed. Furthermore,although it is still possible that somevehicles may arrive for testing withunset readiness codes due to factorssuch as vehicle operation and the timingof repairs in relation to the OBD–I/Mcheck, EPA believes proper outreachencouraging appropriate repairverification and sufficient lead time inseeking repairs should alleviate thisproblem. In addition, many techniciansare trained or encouraged to performproper repair verification by driving the

vehicle before returning it to thecustomer to check whether readinesscodes have been set and whether any ofthe DTCs leading to the original MILillumination recur, post-repair.However, since this kind of repairverification is not a required practice,consumers should insist that servicefacilities follow best practices inperforming repairs or seek repairfacilities that will follow best practices.

In response to the commenters whooppose the readiness exemptionproposal and want back-up testing forall vehicles with unset readiness codes,the Agency believes that the use of theOBD–I/M check exclusively for MY1996 and newer vehicles is anacceptable means of evaluating thissegment of the vehicle fleet and that useof back-up tailpipe testing has limitedapplicability. However, the Agency doesnot prohibit states from using theirdiscretion in addressing this issue andthe other issues mentioned by thesecommenters.

In response to specific commentsfrom New Jersey, EPA’s review of pilotdata from Wisconsin indicate that atmost 1 to 2 percent of the OBD-equipped fleet may qualify as exceedingthe not-ready exemption criteriaestablished by today’s action, and thatnumber is declining. Therefore, thereadiness issue applies only to a smallpart of the fleet and there is little basisto support the claim that the OBM–I/Mcheck cannot replace traditional I/Mtesting for OBD-equipped vehicles.Furthermore, it should be pointed outthat traditional I/M tests also haveknown problems with regard to thetestability of certain vehicles. Forexample, four wheel drive vehicles andvehicles with traction control cannot betested on loaded-mode tests that use twowheel drive dynamometers, and somevehicles with automatic transmissioncannot be tested using the two-speedidle test. Despite these testability issues,however, states have neverthelesssuccessfully implemented traditionalI/M programs. The number of vehiclesinvolved in these cases equal or exceedthe number of vehicles identified ashaving unset readiness codes at the timeof initial testing. EPA therefore does notbelieve that readiness and itsimplications for testability represent aunique issue with regard to the OBM–I/M check.

In response to Alaska’s request toexclude MY 1996–97 vehicles fromOBM–I/M testing because of concernsregarding DLC location and readinessissues associated with those modelyears, EPA believes the concerns at thebase of this request have been largelyaddressed by the flexibility allowed



under today’s rule. Furthermore, studyhas shown that the readiness issuediminishes with time as more vehiclesset their readiness monitors in normaloperation. Regarding DLC locationsissues, experience has shown that thisissue diminishes quickly as inspectorsand technicians become proficient.Additionally, comprehensive databaseson DLC locations have been madeavailable and are already proving tosignificantly reduce DLC locationproblems in the field. It is alsoimportant to note that the CAA requiresthe use of OBM–I/M checks of vehiclesso equipped, and EPA does not see asupportable justification for excludingthese earlier OBD-equipped model yearsfrom the statutory OBM–I/M testingrequirement. EPA therefore expects thatstates which perform OBM–I/M testingwill use the OBD scan for 1996 and1997 vehicles as required.

Regarding Alaska’s desire to ignoreDTCs and/or readiness codes notdirectly related to the particularpollutant for which an area has beendesignated non-attainment, EPA doesnot believe the CAA’s requirement thatOBD systems be inspected and thatmalfunctions and/or deteriorationidentified by such systems be repairedallows for this kind of discretion.Furthermore, allowing such discretionwould largely invalidate the early-warning capacity of OBD through theMIL eclipsing effect discussedelsewhere, and would also send mixedsignals with regard to responding to theMIL. Lastly, the emission controlsystems on OBD-equipped vehicles arecomplex, integrated, and inter-relatedsystems; malfunction in one area canquickly lead to malfunctions in otherareas, so that what starts as an HCproblem can rapidly become a COproblem if not dealt with in a timelymanner. Assuming that vehiclemalfunctions can be segregated intopollutant-specific bins grossly over-simplifies what is, in fact, a complexand inter-dependent system.

In response to comments fromMaryland on several vehicle-specificissues, EPA has identified thosevehicles that currently have readinessissues and has included a list of thesevehicles as an appendix to the guidancedocument entitled ‘‘Performing OnboardDiagnostic System Checks as Part of aVehicle Inspection and MaintenanceProgram’’ (which is available online atthe following web address:www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/obd-im.htm). In addition, the manufacturersthat have identified readiness issueshave already been required to makepublicly available technical servicebulletins detailing the specific issue,

model year coverage, specific makes andmodels, and any available diagnosticinformation (i.e., driving cycle oroperational information) to aid insetting the readiness codes. Also, EPA iscurrently drafting a separate NPRM topropose changes to the ServiceInformation Rule (40 CFR 40474,August, 1995) that will includerequirements for manufacturers toprovide diagnostic drive cycles in theirservice manuals to aid technicians inexercising monitors and settingreadiness codes. Finally, in response toconcern that readiness exemptionscould lead to difficulty in meeting cleanair goals, EPA reiterates that the numberof OBD-equipped vehicles with unsetreadiness codes is quite small, and isdeclining. Furthermore, the subset ofOBD-equipped vehicles with unsetreadiness codes which actually haveemission problems that go unidentifiedbecause of these unset readiness codesis expected to be even smaller, and willeventually be identified once thereadiness codes in question are set.

Lastly, in response to the request fromPeter McClintock of Applied Analysisthat the data collection items proposedfor deletion be restored in the final rule,EPA has restored those data collectionelements that would be applicable tothose areas that opt to include someform of dual testing, whether as a back-up test for vehicles with unset readinesscodes, or as a potential source ofadditional credit (per earlier discussionunder ‘‘Reducing the Testing Burden’’).EPA has added a caveat, however, thatthese elements are to be gathered onlywhere applicable.

I. Applicability of Repair Waivers forOBD-equipped Vehicles

1. Summary of RecommendationCurrently, both the CAA and the

existing I/M rule provide a minimumexpenditure value for state programswhich allow the waiver of vehiclesfailing the I/M inspection from furtherrepair obligation for one test cycle oncea certain, minimum amount has beenspent on relevant repairs. For basic I/Mprograms, these minimum expendituresare $75 for pre-1981 model yearvehicles, and $200 for MY 1981 andnewer vehicles; for enhanced I/Mprograms, the Act specifies a minimumexpenditure for all vehicles of $450adjusted to reflect the difference in theConsumer Price Index (CPI) between theprevious year and 1989. Neither the rulenor the Act specifically addresses theOBM–I/M check when it comes toqualifying for waivers. However, the Actclearly states that the minimum amountto qualify for a waiver applies to any

failure. Thus, EPA lacks the legalauthority to prohibit states fromallowing MY 1996 and newer, OBD-equipped vehicles to qualify forwaivers. Nevertheless, in its September20, 2000 NPRM, EPA recommended (butdid not require) that states not allow MY1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles to be waived prior to receivingrepairs to extinguish the MIL and clearany DTCs for which the MIL wasilluminated. EPA also recommendedthat states consider providing repairsubsidies or some other form offinancial assistance to address hardshipcases for OBD-identified failures thatwould otherwise be addressed throughthe waiver process.

EPA made this recommendationbecause of the fundamental differencebetween how OBD-equipped vehiclesand non-OBD-equipped vehicles arediagnosed and repaired. EPA expressedits belief that the minimum expenditurewaiver makes sense for traditionaltailpipe and/or evaporative emissiontest based repairs because such testsprovide little concrete informationconcerning the specific cause of failure.Therefore, the waiver helps protectconsumers from trial-and-error repairsthat amount to little more than throwingparts at an insufficiently isolatedproblem. OBD, on the other hand, isspecifically designed to help limit theopportunity for trial-and-error repairs bylinking DTCs to specific componentsand subsystems. OBD does not just tellthe repair technician that there is aproblem, but also identifies what kindof problem and approximately where inthe overall system it is occurring. TheAgency also believes that the mostsuccessful use of the OBD system willresult in motorists routinely respondingto the MIL when first illuminated, assoon as a problem with the potential toproduce high emissions is detected andbefore successful repair becomes morecostly. A program which allows repairwaivers should take care so as not todiscourage this immediate and routinemotorist response to an illuminatedMIL, which could occur if motoristspostpone necessary repairs in hopes thatthe subsequent I/M program inspectionwill render such repairs ‘‘unnecessary’’because of the waiver option.

2. Summary of CommentsA total of 15 commenters responded

to the Agency’s waiverrecommendations for OBD equippedvehicles—ten supporting therecommendation, and five opposing.Four states (New Hampshire, Vermont,Missouri, and New York) expressedsupport for EPA’s recommendation,while Missouri suggested specific



waiver flexibility options that meet thatstate’s specific needs. Four commentersrepresenting the automobile industry(APSA, AIAM, NADA, and ASA)submitted supporting comment withmost noting the need for hardshipexemptions or subsidies where waiversare disallowed. APSA also noted theneed to actively promote ownerresponse to MILs before inspection. Twoother commenters (ESP and ALA) alsosupported EPA’s recommendation, andsuggested that the Agency reconsider itspolicy concerning model yearexemptions to encourage promptmotorist response to illuminated MILs.

Four states (Massachusetts, Alaska,Maryland, and California) and AAAdisagreed with EPA’s recommendation.Both Massachusetts and Alaskaexpressed concern that waivers might benecessary for older, high mileagevehicles. AAA noted that waivers are ameans of consumer protection and thatalthough EPA recommends statesprovide financial assistance in hardshipcases, there is no guarantee that stateswill offer such assistance.

3. Response to CommentsEPA’s position with regard to waiver

policy for OBD vehicles is presentedonly as a recommendation, not arequirement, as noted in the proposalfor this rule. The CAA clearly providesstates the flexibility to offer waivers forany failure as long as the minimumexpenditure requirements are met.Section 51.360 of the I/M rule furtherclarifies waiver issuance criteria andthose requirements are not beingamended in any way with this actiontoday. The Agency’s recommendation—that states consider prohibiting OBD-equipped vehicles from receivingwaivers—is based on the inherentdifferences between how the OBD–I/Mcheck and traditional I/M tests identifyvehicles in need of repair. The basis forthat recommendation was detailed inthe ‘‘Summary of Proposal’’ above andwill not be restated here. Nevertheless,EPA did request comments orsuggestions on alternativerecommendations. The majority ofcommenters supported EPA’srecommendation and concurred thatspecial considerations should be madefor hardship cases. The flexibilityoptions suggested by at least one stateare just that—flexibilities that statesmay opt to use at their discretion, aslong as minimum monetary waiverrequirements are met. Obviously, statesopposed to the recommendation mayelect to provide waivers, as long asstatutory and regulatory waiverrequirements are met. With regard toconcerns that OBD induced repairs may

not be cost effective or may be moreinequitable for low income motoriststhan is the case with tailpipe testing,EPA does not agree. Studies have shownthat average repair costs for OBD-identified failures do not generallydiffer from average repairs that resultfrom tailpipe testing. In fact, the Agencymaintains that OBD-identified repairshave the potential to be more effectivebecause of the targeted diagnosis whichthe technology offers. The Agency asksthat states take the above factors intoconsideration in determining how bestto address the waiver issue with regardto MY 1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles.

Regarding the suggestion made byESP and ALA that EPA considereliminating new model year exemptionsfor OBD-equipped vehicles, the Agencydoes not have the legal authority toestablish such a restriction.Nevertheless, EPA appreciates therationale for wanting to catch OBD-identified failures as soon as possibleand agrees that early inspection of OBD-equipped vehicles could serve as anincentive to stimulate timely motoristresponse to illuminated MILs.Furthermore, early inspection of OBD-equipped vehicles could help ensurethat OBD-identified failures areaddressed within the warranty periodfor such repairs, thus providing not onlyenvironmental protection, but alsoconsumer protection. Lastly, given thespeed with which the OBD–I/M checkcan be performed, the Agency believesthe additional testing burden could bemodest, and may be worth states’reconsidering their model year coverage,given the potential benefits discussedabove.

V. Discussion of Major Issues

A. Emission Impact of the ProposedAmendments

Today’s action clarifies existingflexibility currently available to stateswith regard to exempting specific modelyears from specific programrequirements. It also provides anincentive for states to optimize theefficiency and cost effectiveness of theirexisting programs. Based upon its pilottesting, EPA believes that a programrelying on OBD–I/M checks for MY1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles will just as effectively identifyproblem vehicles as any existingprogram combining IM240 exhausttesting with evaporative system purgeand fill-neck pressure tests. However,nothing in today’s action bars statesfrom continuing their existing I/M testsin conjunction with OBD–I/M testing on

MY 1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles, should they so desire.

Data and analyses currently availableto EPA are insufficient to establish anyadditional HC, CO, or NOX credit due toconducting loaded mode tests such asthe ASM or IM240 in conjunction withthe OBD–I/M test. As currentlydesigned, the OBD monitoring strategymanufacturers are employing todetermine catalyst efficiency tends to beoptimized for identifying deteriorationor malfunctions leading to increased HCemissions. EPA believes that the catalystproblems which would impact CO orNOX performance would also tend toimpact HC emission performance.However, some vehicles may be moresensitive to CO or NOX deteriorationand therefore could fail for thesepollutants under a traditional I/Mexhaust test before deterioration of thecatalyst’s HC conversion efficiency wasgreat enough to be detected by currentcatalyst OBD monitoring strategies.Furthermore, it is also possible thatstates that choose to engage in limiteddual testing of vehicles with unsetreadiness monitors may also identifysome additional high HC, CO, and/orNOX emitters that would otherwise bemissed by OBD-only testing under thelimited unset readiness exemptionprovided in today’s action. Because wesee no good regulatory reason toprohibit a state from voluntarilypursuing such additional emissionbenefits, EPA invites interested states todevelop the information necessary toquantify any additional SIP credit foreither full or limited dual testing, basedupon actual, operating program data.EPA will determine the adequacy ofthese demonstrations throughrulemaking on a case-by-case basis.

B. Impact on Existing and Future I/MPrograms

States with approved I/M SIPs willnot have to remodel the emissionreduction potential of their I/Mprograms if they choose to exempt MY1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles from traditional I/M tests infavor of mandatory OBD–I/M checks onthose same vehicles, provided no otherprogrammatic changes are made. If,however, a state chooses to modify itsprogram another way, then a revisedI/M SIP and new modeling may benecessary. Nevertheless, it is importantto note that today’s action is aimed atlessening the overall burden on stateswhile also improving program efficiencyand cost effectiveness; the action doesnot increase the existing burden onstates, provided states do not makeother changes to their programs.



VI. Economic Costs and BenefitsToday’s action provides states with an

incentive to increase the costeffectiveness and efficiency of theirexisting I/M programs. The action willlessen rather than increase the potentialeconomic burden on states. Mostsignificantly, today’s action allowsstates the discretion to suspendtraditional I/M tests on MY 1996 andnewer, OBD-equipped vehicles in favorof conducting the OBD–I/M check onthese same vehicles. This constitutes anet lessening of the burden relative tothe requirement in place prior to today’saction (i.e., that MY 1996 and newer,OBD-equipped vehicles receive both thetraditional I/M test(s) and the OBD–I/Mcheck). Furthermore, states are under noobligation, legal or otherwise, to modifyexisting plans meeting the previouslyapplicable requirements as a result oftoday’s action.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative DesignationIt has been determined that these

amendments to the I/M rule do notconstitute a significant regulatory actionunder the terms of Executive Order12866 and this action is therefore notsubject to OMB review. Any impactsassociated with these revisions do notconstitute additional burdens whencompared to the existing I/Mrequirements published in the FederalRegister on November 5, 1992 (57 FR52950) as amended. Nor do theseamendments create an annual effect onthe economy of $100 million or more orotherwise adversely affect the economyor the environment. This action is notinconsistent with nor does it interferewith actions by other agencies. It doesnot alter budgetary impacts ofentitlements or other programs, and itdoes not raise any new or unusual legalor policy issues.

B. Reporting and RecordkeepingRequirement

There are no additional informationrequirements in these amendmentswhich require the approval of the Officeof Management and Budget under thePaperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C.3501 et seq.

C. Regulatory Flexibility AnalysisEPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatoryflexibility analysis in connection withthis final rule. EPA has also determinedthat this rule will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. For purposesof assessing the impact of today’s ruleon small entities, small entities are

defined as including small governmentjurisdictions, that is, ‘‘governments ofcities, counties, towns, townships,villages, school districts, or specialdistricts, with a population of less than50,000.’’ The basic and enhanced I/Mrequirements however only apply tourbanized areas with population inexcess of either 100,000 or 200,000depending on location.

Therefore, after considering theeconomic impacts of today’s final ruleon small entities, EPA has concludedthat this action will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.This final rule will not impose anyrequirements on small entities, since alljurisdictions effected by the rule exceedthe definition of small governmentjurisdictions. Furthermore, the impactcreated by this action does not increasethe preexisting burden of the existingrules which this action amends.

D. Unfunded Mandates ActUnder section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signedinto law on March 22, 1995, EPA mustprepare a budgetary impact statement toaccompany any proposed or final rulewhere the estimated costs to State, local,or tribal governments, or to the privatesector, will be $100 million or more.Under section 205, EPA must select themost cost-effective and leastburdensome alternative that achievesthe objective of the rule and isconsistent with statutory requirements.Section 203 requires EPA to establish aplan for informing and advising anysmall governments that may besignificantly impacted by the rule. Tothe extent that today’s action wouldimpose any mandate at all as defined insection 101 of the Unfunded MandatesAct upon the state, local, or tribalgovernments, or the private sector, asexplained above, this rule is notestimated to impose costs in excess of$100 million. Therefore, EPA has notprepared a statement with respect tobudgetary impacts. As noted above, thisrule offers opportunities to states thatenable them to lower economic burdensrelative to those resulting from thecurrently existing I/M rule whichtoday’s action amends.

E. Executive Order 13132: FederalismExecutive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,1999), requires EPA to develop anaccountable process to ensure‘‘meaningful and timely input by Stateand local officials in the development ofregulatory policies that have federalismimplications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined inthe Executive Order to includeregulations that have ‘‘substantial directeffects on the States, on the relationshipbetween the national government andthe States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among thevarious levels of government.’’

Under section 6 of Executive Order13132, EPA may not issue a regulationthat has federalism implications, thatimposes substantial direct compliancecosts, and that is not required by statute,unless the Federal government providesthe funds necessary to pay the directcompliance costs incurred by State andlocal governments, or EPA consults withState and local officials early in theprocess of developing the proposedregulation. EPA also may not issue aregulation that has federalismimplications and that preempts Statelaw, unless the Agency consults withState and local officials early in theprocess of developing the proposedregulation.

Today’s action does not havefederalism implications. It will not havesubstantial direct effects on the States,on the relationship between the nationalgovernment and the States, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government, as specified inExecutive Order 13132. On the contrary,the intent of today’s amendments is toprovide states greater flexibility withregard to pre-existing regulatoryrequirements for vehicle inspection andmaintenance (I/M) programs. Thus, therequirements of section 6 of theExecutive Order do not apply to thisproposal.

F. Consultation and Coordination WithIndian Tribal Governments

On November 6, 2000, the Presidentissued Executive Order 13175 (65 FR67249) entitled, ‘‘Consultation andCoordination with Indian TribalGovernments.’’ Executive Order 13175took effect on January 6, 2001, andrevokes Executive Order 13084 (TribalConsultation) as of that date. EPAdeveloped this final rule, however,during the period when Executive Order13084 was in effect; thus, EPAaddressed tribal considerations underExecutive Order 13084.

Under Executive Order 13084, EPAmay not issue a regulation that is notrequired by statute, that significantly oruniquely affects the communities ofIndian tribal governments, and thatimposes substantial direct compliancecosts on those communities, unless theFederal government provides the fundsnecessary to pay the direct compliancecosts incurred by the tribal



governments, or EPA consults withthose governments. If EPA complies byconsulting, Executive Order 13084requires EPA to provide to the Office ofManagement and Budget, in a separatelyidentified section of the preamble to therule, a description of the extent of EPA’sprior consultation with representativesof affected tribal governments, asummary of the nature of their concerns,and a statement supporting the need toissue the regulation. In addition,Executive Order 13084 requires EPA todevelop an effective process permittingelected officials and otherrepresentatives of Indian tribalgovernments ‘‘to provide meaningfuland timely input in the development ofregulatory policies on matters thatsignificantly or uniquely affect theircommunities.’’ Today’s action does notsignificantly or uniquely affect thecommunities of Indian tribalgovernments. Today’s action does notcreate a mandate on tribal governmentsor create any additional burden orrequirements for tribal government. Theaction does not impose any enforceableduties on these entities. Accordingly,the requirements of section 3(b) ofExecutive Order 13084 do not apply tothis proposal.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection ofChildren From Environmental HealthRisks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:(1) is determined to be economicallysignificant as defined under ExecutiveOrder 12866, and (2) concerns anenvironmental health or safety risk thatEPA has reason to believe may have adisproportionate effect on children. Ifthe regulatory action meets both criteria,the Agency must evaluate theenvironmental health or safety effects ofthe planned rule on children, andexplain why the planned regulation ispreferable to other potentially effectiveand reasonably feasible alternativesconsidered by the Agency. EPAinterprets Executive Order 13045 asapplying only to those regulatoryactions that are based on health or safetyrisks, such that the analysis requiredunder section 5–501 of the Order hasthe potential to influence the regulation.Today’s action is not subject toExecutive Order 13045 because it is noteconomically significant underExecutive Order 12866 and because it isbased on technology performance andnot on health or safety risks.

H. National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act

Section 12(d) of the NationalTechnology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federalagencies to use voluntary consensusstandards instead of government-uniquestandards in their regulatory activitiesunless to do so would be inconsistentwith applicable law or otherwiseimpractical. Voluntary consensusstandards are technical standards (e.g.,material specifications, test methods,sampling and analytical procedures,business practices, etc.) that aredeveloped or adopted by one or morevoluntary consensus standards bodies.Examples of organizations generallyregarded as voluntary consensusstandards bodies include the AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials(ASTM), the National Fire ProtectionAssociation (NFPA), and the Society ofAutomotive Engineers (SAE). TheNTTAA requires Federal agencies likeEPA to provide Congress, through OMB,with explanations when an agencydecides not to use available andapplicable voluntary consensusstandards.

Today’s action does not involvetechnical standards. Therefore, EPA isnot considering the use of any voluntaryconsensus standards.

I. Congressional Review ActThe Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the SmallBusiness Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996, generally providesthat before a rule may take effect, theagency promulgating the rule mustsubmit a rule report, which includes acopy of the rule, to each House of theCongress and to the Comptroller Generalof the United States. EPA will submit areport containing this rule and otherrequired information to the U.S. Senate,the U.S. House of Representatives, andthe Comptroller General of the UnitedStates prior to publication of the rule inthe Federal Register. This rule is not a‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

J. Judicial ReviewUnder section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

EPA hereby finds that these regulationsare of national applicability.Accordingly, judicial review of thisaction is available only by filing of apetition for review in the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit within 60 days ofpublication in the Federal Register.Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, therequirements which are the subject oftoday’s rule may not be challenged laterin judicial proceedings brought by EPAto enforce these requirements. Thisrulemaking and any petitions for revieware subject to the provisions of section307(d) of the Clean Air Act.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

Environmental protection,Administrative practice and procedure,Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,Intergovernmental relations, Lead,Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulatematter, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatileorganic compounds, Transportation.

40 CFR Part 85

Environmental protection,Confidential business information,Imports, Labeling, Motor vehiclepollution, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Research, Warranties.

Dated: March 28, 2001.Christine Todd Whitman,Administrator.

For the reasons set out in thepreamble, part 51 and 85 of chapter I,title 40 of the Code of FederalRegulations are amended to read asfollows:

PART 51—[AMENDED]

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

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

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

§ 51.351 Enhanced I/M performancestandard.

* * * * *(c) On-board diagnostics (OBD). The

performance standard shall includeinspection of all 1996 and later light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucksequipped with certified on-boarddiagnostic systems, and repair ofmalfunctions or system deteriorationidentified by or affecting OBD systemsas specified in § 51.357. For States usingsome version of MOBILE5 prior tomandated use of the MOBILE6 andsubsequent versions of EPA’s mobilesource emission factor model, the OBD–I/M portion of the State’s program aswell as the applicable enhanced I/Mperformance standard may be assumedto be equivalent to performing theevaporative system purge test, theevaporative system fill-neck pressuretest, and the IM240 using grams-per-mile (gpm) cutpoints of 0.60 gpm HC,10.0 gpm CO, and 1.50 gpm NOX on MY1996 and newer vehicles and assuminga start date of January 1, 2002 for theOBD–I/M portion of the performancestandard. This interim credit assessmentdoes not add to but rather replacescredit for any other test(s) that may beperformed on MY 1996 and newer



vehicles, with the exception of the gas-cap-only evaporative system test, whichmay be added to the State’s program togenerate additional HC reduction credit.This interim assumption shall applyeven in the event that the State opts todiscontinue its current I/M tests on MY1996 and newer vehicles in favor of anOBD–I/M check on those same vehicles,with the exception of the gas-capevaporative system test. If a Statecurrently claiming the gas-cap test in itsI/M SIP decides to discontinue that teston some segment of its subject fleetpreviously covered, then the State willneed to revise its SIP and I/M modelingto quantify the resulting loss in credit,per established modeling policy for thegas-cap pressure test. Once MOBILE6 isreleased and its use required, theinterim, MOBILE5-based modelingmethodology described in this sectionwill be replaced by the OBD–I/M creditavailable from the MOBILE6 andsubsequent mobile source emissionfactor models.* * * * *

3. Section 51.352 is amended byrevising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 51.352 Basic I/M performance standard.* * * * *

(c) On-board diagnostics (OBD). Theperformance standard shall includeinspection of all 1996 and later light-duty vehicles equipped with certifiedon-board diagnostic systems, and repairof malfunctions or system deteriorationidentified by or affecting OBD systemsas specified in § 51.357. For States usingsome version of MOBILE5 prior tomandated use of the MOBILE6 andsubsequent versions of EPA’s mobilesource emission factor model, the OBD–I/M portion of the State’s program aswell as the applicable I/M performancestandard may be assumed to beequivalent to performing theevaporative system purge test, theevaporative system fill-neck pressuretest, and the IM240 using grams-per-mile (gpm) cutpoints of 0.60 gpm HC,10.0 gpm CO, and 1.50 gpm NOX on MY1996 and newer vehicles and assuminga start date of January 1, 2002 for theOBD–I/M portion of the performancestandard. This interim credit assessmentdoes not add to but rather replacescredit for any other test(s) that may beperformed on MY 1996 and newervehicles, with the exception of the gas-cap-only evaporative system test, whichmay be added to the State’s program togenerate additional HC reduction credit.This interim assumption shall applyeven in the event that the State opts todiscontinue its current I/M tests on MY1996 and newer vehicles in favor of anOBD–I/M check on those same vehicles,

with the exception of the gas-capevaporative system test. If a Statecurrently claiming the gas-cap test in itsI/M SIP decides to discontinue that teston some segment of its subject fleetpreviously covered, then the State willneed to revise its SIP and I/M modelingto quantify the resulting loss in credit,per established modeling policy for thegas-cap pressure test. Once MOBILE6 isreleased and its use required, theinterim, MOBILE5-based modelingmethodology described in this sectionwill be replaced by the OBD–I/M creditavailable from the MOBILE6 andsubsequent mobile source emissionfactor models.* * * * *

4. Section 51.356 is amended byadding a new paragraph (a)(6) to read asfollows:

§ 51.356 Vehicle coverage.* * * * *

(a) * * *(6) States may also exempt MY 1996

and newer OBD-equipped vehicles thatreceive an OBD–I/M inspection from thetailpipe, purge, and fill-neck pressuretests (where applicable) without anyloss of emission reduction credit.* * * * *

5. Section 51.357 is amended byrevising paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(12), (b)(1),(b)(4) and (d) introductory text to readas follows:

§ 51.357 Test procedures and standards.* * * * *

(a) * * *(5) Vehicles shall be rejected from

testing if the exhaust system is missingor leaking, or if the vehicle is in anunsafe condition for testing. Coincidentwith mandatory OBD–I/M testing andrepair of vehicles so equipped, MY 1996and newer vehicles shall be rejectedfrom testing if a scan of the OBD systemreveals a ‘‘not ready’’ code for anycomponent of the OBD system. At astate’s option it may choosealternatively to reject MY 1996–2000vehicles only if three or more ‘‘notready’’ codes are present and to rejectMY 2001 and later model years only iftwo or more ‘‘not ready’’ codes arepresent. This provision does not releasemanufacturers from the obligationsregarding readiness status set forth in 40CFR 86.094–17(e)(1): ‘‘Control of AirPollution From New Motor Vehicles andNew Motor Vehicle Engines:Regulations Requiring On-BoardDiagnostic Systems on 1994 and LaterModel Year Light-Duty Vehicles andLight-Duty Trucks.’’ Once the cause forrejection has been corrected, the vehiclemust return for testing to continue thetesting process. Failure to return for

testing in a timely manner after rejectionshall be considered non-compliancewith the program, unless the motoristcan prove that the vehicle has been sold,scrapped, or is otherwise no longer inoperation within the program area.* * * * *

(12) On-board diagnostic checks.Beginning January 1, 2002, inspection ofthe on-board diagnostic (OBD) systemon MY 1996 and newer light-dutyvehicles and light-duty trucks shall beconducted according to the proceduredescribed in 40 CFR 85.2222, at aminimum. This inspection may be usedin lieu of tailpipe, purge, and fill-neckpressure testing. Alternatively, statesmay elect to phase-in OBD–I/M testingfor one test cycle by using theOBD–I/M check to screen clean vehiclesfrom tailpipe testing and require repairand retest for only those vehicles whichproceed to fail the tailpipe test. Anadditional alternative is also available tostates with regard to the deadline formandatory testing, repair, and retestingof vehicles based upon the OBD–I/Mcheck. Under this third option, if a statecan show good cause (and theAdministrator takes notice-and-comment action to approve this goodcause showing as a revision to theState’s Implementation Plan), up to anadditional 12 months’ extension may begranted, establishing an alternative startdate for such states of no later thanJanuary 1, 2003. States choosing to makethis showing will also have available tothem the phase-in approach describedin this section, with the one-cycle timelimit to begin coincident with thealternative start date established byAdministrator approval of the showing,but no later than January 1, 2003. Theshowing of good cause (and its approvalor disapproval) will be addressed on acase-by-case basis by the Administrator.* * * * *

(b) Test standards—(1) Emissionsstandards. HC, CO, and CO+CO2 (or CO2

alone) emission standards shall beapplicable to all vehicles subject to theprogram with the exception of MY 1996and newer OBD-equipped light-dutyvehicles and light-duty trucks, whichwill be held to the requirements of 40CFR 85.2207, at a minimum. Repairsshall be required for failure of anystandard regardless of the attainmentstatus of the area. NOX emissionstandards shall be applied to vehiclessubject to a loaded mode test in ozonenonattainment areas and in an ozonetransport region, unless a waiver of NOX

controls is provided to the State under§ 51.351(d).* * * * *



(4) On-board diagnostic teststandards. Vehicles shall fail the on-board diagnostic test if they fail to meetthe requirements of 40 CFR 85.2207, ata minimum. Failure of the on-boarddiagnostic test need not result in failureof the vehicle inspection/maintenancetest until January 1, 2002. Alternatively,states may elect to phase-in OBD–I/Mtesting for one test cycle by using theOBD–I/M check to screen clean vehiclesfrom tailpipe testing and require repairand retest for only those vehicles whichproceed to fail the tailpipe test. Anadditional alternative is also available tostates with regard to the deadline formandatory testing, repair, and retestingof vehicles based upon the OBD–I/Mcheck. Under this third option, if a statecan show good cause (and theAdministrator takes notice-and-comment action to approve this goodcause showing), up to an additional 12months’ extension may be granted,establishing an alternative start date forsuch states of no later than January 1,2003. States choosing to make thisshowing will also have available tothem the phase-in approach describedin this section, with the one-cycle timelimit to begin coincident with thealternative start date established byAdministrator approval of the showing,but no later than January 1, 2003. Theshowing of good cause (and its approvalor disapproval) will be addressed on acase-by-case basis.* * * * *

(d) Applicability. In general, section203(a)(3)(A) of the Clean Air Actprohibits altering a vehicle’sconfiguration such that it changes froma certified to a non-certifiedconfiguration. In the inspection process,vehicles that have been altered fromtheir original certified configuration areto be tested in the same manner as othersubject vehicles with the exception ofMY 1996 and newer, OBD-equippedvehicles on which the data linkconnector is missing, has been tamperedwith or which has been altered in sucha way as to make OBD system testingimpossible. Such vehicles shall be failedfor the on-board diagnostics portion ofthe test and are expected to be repairedso that the vehicle is testable. Failure toreturn for retesting in a timely mannerafter failure and repair shall beconsidered non-compliance with theprogram, unless the motorist can provethat the vehicle has been sold, scrapped,or is otherwise no longer in operationwithin the program area.* * * * *

6. Section 51.358 is amended byrevising paragraph (a)(1) to read asfollows:

§ 51.358 Test equipment.

* * * * *(a) * * *(1) Emission test equipment shall be

capable of testing all subject vehiclesand shall be updated from time to timeto accommodate new technologyvehicles as well as changes to theprogram. In the case of OBD-basedtesting, the equipment used to accessthe onboard computer shall be capableof testing all MY 1996 and newer, OBD-equipped light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.* * * * *

7. Section 51.366 is amended byrevising paragraphs (a)(2)(xi), (a)(2)(xii),(a)(2)(xiii), (a)(2)(xiv), (a)(2)(xv),(a)(2)(xvi), (a)(2)(xvii), and (a)(2)(xviii)to read as follows:

§ 51.366 Data analysis and reporting.

* * * * *(a) * * *(2) * * *(xi) Passing the on-board diagnostic

check;(xii) Failing the on-board diagnostic

check;(xiii) Failing the on-board diagnostic

check and passing the tailpipe test (ifapplicable);

(xiv) Failing the on-board diagnosticcheck and failing the tailpipe test (ifapplicable);

(xv) Passing the on-board diagnosticcheck and failing the I/M gas capevaporative system test (if applicable);

(xvi) Failing the on-board diagnosticcheck and passing the I/M gas capevaporative system test (if applicable);

(xvii) Passing both the on-boarddiagnostic check and I/M gas capevaporative system test (if applicable);

(xviii) Failing both the on-boarddiagnostic check and I/M gas capevaporative system test (if applicable);* * * * *

8. Section 51.373 is amended byrevising paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§ 51.373 Implementation deadlines.

* * * * *(g) On-Board Diagnostic checks shall

be implemented in all basic, lowenhanced and high enhanced areas aspart of the I/M program by January 1,2002. Alternatively, states may elect tophase-in OBD–I/M testing for one testcycle by using the OBD–I/M check toscreen clean vehicles from tailpipetesting and require repair and retest foronly those vehicles which proceed tofail the tailpipe test. An additionalalternative is also available to stateswith regard to the deadline formandatory testing, repair, and retestingof vehicles based upon the OBD–I/Mcheck. Under this third option, if a state

can show good cause (and theAdministrator takes notice-and-comment action to approve this goodcause showing), up to an additional 12months’ extension may be granted,establishing an alternative start date forsuch states of no later than January 1,2003. States choosing to make thisshowing will also have available tothem the phase-in approach describedin this section, with the one-cycle timelimit to begin coincident with thealternative start date established byAdministrator approval of the showing,but no later than January 1, 2003. Theshowing of good cause (and its approvalor disapproval) will be addressed on acase-by-case basis.

PART 85—CONTROL OF AIRPOLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

10. Section 85.2207 is amended byrevising paragraph (d) to read asfollows:

§ 85.2207 On-board diagnostics teststandards.* * * * *

(d) A vehicle shall fail the on-boarddiagnostics test if the malfunctionindicator light is commanded to beilluminated for one or more OBDdiagnostic trouble codes (DTCs), asdefined by SAE J2012. The procedureshall be done in accordance with SAEJ2012 Diagnostic Trouble CodeDefinitions, (MAR92). Thisincorporation by reference wasapproved by the Director of the FederalRegister in accordance with 5 U.S.C.552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of SAEJ2012 may be obtained from the Societyof Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA15096–0001. Copies may be inspected atthe EPA Docket No. A–94–21 at EPA’sAir Docket, (LE–131) Room 1500 M, 1stFloor, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW,Washington, DC, or at the Office of theFederal Register, 800 North CapitolStreet, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.* * * * *

11. Section 85.2222 is amended byrevising paragraphs (a), (c), (d)(1) and(d)(2) and by adding new paragraph(d)(4) to read as follows:

§ 85.2222 On-board diagnostic testprocedures.* * * * *

(a) The on-board diagnosticinspection shall be conducted with thekey-on/engine running (KOER), with theexception of inspecting for MILillumination as required in paragraph



(d)(4) of this section, during which theinspection shall be conducted with thekey-on/engine off (KOEO).* * * * *

(c) The test system shall send a Mode$01, PID $01 request in accordance withSAE J1979 to determine the evaluationstatus of the vehicle’s on-boarddiagnostic system. The test system shalldetermine what monitors are supportedby the on-board diagnostic system, andthe readiness evaluation for applicablemonitors in accordance with SAE J1979.The procedure shall be done inaccordance with SAE J1979 ‘‘E/EDiagnostic Test Modes,’’ (DEC91). Thisincorporation by reference wasapproved by the Director of the FederalRegister in accordance with 5 U.S.C.552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of SAEJ1979 may be obtained from the Societyof Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA15096–0001. Copies may be inspected atthe EPA Docket No. A–94–21 at EPA’sAir Docket (LE–131), Room 1500 M, 1stFloor, Waterside Mall, 401 M StreetSW., Washington, DC, or at the Office ofthe Federal Register, 800 North CapitolStreet, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

(1) Coincident with the beginning ofmandatory testing, repair, and retestingbased upon the OBD–I/M check, if thereadiness evaluation indicates that anyon-board tests are not complete thecustomer shall be instructed to returnafter the vehicle has been run underconditions that allow completion of allapplicable on-board tests. If the

readiness evaluation again indicates thatany on-board test is not complete thevehicle shall be failed.

(2) An exception to paragraph (c)(1) ofthis section is allowed for MY 1996 toMY 2000 vehicles, inclusive, with twoor fewer unset readiness monitors, andfor MY 2001 and newer vehicles withno more than one unset readinessmonitor. Vehicles from those modelyears which would otherwise pass theOBD inspection, but for the unsetreadiness code(s) in question may beissued a passing certificate withoutbeing required to operate the vehicle insuch a way as to activate thoseparticular monitors. Vehicles from thosemodel years with unset readiness codeswhich also have diagnostic troublecodes (DTCs) stored resulting in a litmalfunction indicator light (MIL) mustbe failed, though setting the unsetreadiness flags in question shall not bea prerequisite for passing the retest.

(d) * * *(1) If the malfunction indicator status

bit indicates that the malfunctionindicator light (MIL) has beencommanded to be illuminated the testsystem shall send a Mode $03 request todetermine the stored diagnostic troublecodes (DTCs). The system shall repeatthis cycle until the number of codesreported equals the number expectedbased on the Mode 1 response. All DTCsresulting in MIL illumination shall berecorded in the vehicle test record andthe vehicle shall fail the on-boarddiagnostic inspection.

(2) If the malfunction indicator lightbit is not commanded to be illuminatedthe vehicle shall pass the on-boarddiagnostic inspection, even if DTCs arepresent.* * * * *

(4) If the malfunction indicator light(MIL) does not illuminate at all whenthe vehicle is in the key-on/engine-off(KOEO) condition, the vehicle shall failthe on-board diagnostic inspection, evenif no DTCs are present and the MIL hasnot been commanded on.

12. Section 85.2223 is amended byrevising paragraph (a) and removing andreserving paragraph (b) to read asfollows:

§ 85.2223 On-board diagnostic test report.

(a) Motorists whose vehicles fail theon-board diagnostic test described in§ 85.2222 shall be provided with the on-board diagnostic test results, includingthe codes retrieved, the name of thecomponent or system associated witheach fault code, the status of the MILillumination command, and thecustomer alert statement as stated inparagraph (c) of this section.

(b) [Reserved]* * * * *

§ 85.2231 [Removed]

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

[FR Doc. 01–8276 Filed 4–4–01; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


Thursday, April 5, 2001 - U.S. Government Publishing … Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 66/Thursday,...

Documents

Transcript of Thursday, April 5, 2001 - U.S. Government Publishing … Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 66/Thursday,...