[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 20, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56844-56856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24048]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 51 and 85
[FRL-6871-4]
RIN 2060-AJ03
Amendments to Vehicle Inspection Maintenance Program Requirements
Incorporating the Onboard Diagnostic Check
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes both substantive and minor revisions to
the Motor Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) requirements to provide
additional flexibility to state I/M programs by allowing such programs
to replace traditional I/M tests on model year 1996 and newer vehicles
so equipped with a check of the onboard diagnostic (OBD) system.
Additionally, the proposed amendments would: extend the deadline for
beginning OBD inspections from January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2002;
revise and simplify the failure criteria for the OBD check; address
State Implementation Plan (SIP) credit modeling for the OBD check;
allow for limited exemptions from some OBD check failure and/or
rejection criteria for certain model year vehicles; and correct a
typographical error in the current basic I/M performance standard
regarding OBD-I/M vehicle coverage. Lastly, this document solicits
public comment on how to address the issue of repair waivers for OBD-
equipped vehicles and the possibility of extending the deadline for
implementing OBD-I/M checks even further.
DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received no later than
October 20, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in duplicate
if possible) to Public Docket No. A-2000-16. It is requested that a
duplicate copy be submitted to David Sosnowski at the address in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The docket is located at the
Air Docket, Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall S.W., Washington, DC
20460. The docket may be inspected between 8:30 a.m. and 12 noon and
between 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying docket material.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Sosnowski, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs
Division, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105. Telephone (734)
214-4823.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Contents
II. Summary of Proposal
III. Authority
IV. Background of the Proposed Amendments
A. Amendments to Extend the Implementation Deadline
B. Amendments to Reduce Testing Burden
C. SIP Credit Modeling Amendments
D. OBD-I/M Failure Criteria Amendments
E. OBD-I/M Rejection Criteria Amendments
F. Technical Amendment
V. Discussion of Major Issues
A. Emission Impact of the Proposed Amendments
B. Impact on Existing and Future I/M Programs
VI. Economic Costs and Benefits
VII. Public Participation
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
II. Summary of Proposal
Under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.,
states required to implement vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)
programs were further required to incorporate a check of the onboard
diagnostic (OBD) computer as part of those programs. On November 5,
1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the
Federal Register (40 CFR part 51, subpart S) a rule related to state
air quality implementation plans for I/M programs (hereafter referred
to as the I/M rule; see 57 FR 52950). At the time the 1992 rule was
published, certification regulations for OBD had not been finalized,
and so EPA reserved space in the I/M rule to address OBD-I/M
requirements at some later date. Since 1992, EPA has twice amended the
I/M rule to address various aspects of the OBD-I/M check--first, on
August 6, 1996, and again on May 4, 1998. EPA is proposing today to
further amend the I/M rule and OBD testing requirements to provide
states with the greater flexibility they need to better meet local
needs, to update requirements based upon technological advances, and to
optimize program efficiency and cost effectiveness.
With today's document EPA proposes to: (1) Extend the current
deadline for mandatory implementation of the OBD-I/M inspection from
January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2002; (2) clarify that I/M programs may
use periodic checks of the OBD system on model year (MY) 1996 and newer
OBD-equipped vehicles in lieu of (as opposed to in addition to)
existing exhaust and evaporative system purge and fill-neck pressure
tests on those same vehicles; (3) establish the modeling methodology to
be used by states in their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to account
for the replacement of traditional I/M tests by OBD-I/M testing and
repair, prior to release of MOBILE6 and subsequent iterations of EPA's
mobile source emission factor model; (4) revise and simplify the
current list of Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) that constitute the
OBD-I/M failure criteria to include any DTC that leads to the dashboard
Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) being commanded on; (5) provide for
exemptions from specific readiness code rejection criteria on OBD-
equipped vehicles based upon vehicle model year; and (6) correct a
typographical error in the basic I/M performance standard's OBD
coverage (which currently applies OBD-I/M testing to both light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks) to limit such testing coverage to
light-duty vehicles only, for the purpose of establishing the minimum,
basic I/M performance standard.
The goal of these proposed amendments is to update and streamline
requirements and to remove regulatory obstacles that would impede the
effective implementation of the OBD-
I/M testing required of all I/M programs under the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990. By extending the deadline by which states must begin
implementation of OBD-I/M inspections, EPA hopes to provide states the
time necessary to better educate the public and the testing
[[Page 56845]]
and repair industries regarding this important emission control
technology, and to reduce the potential for start-up difficulties that
have undercut previous I/M efforts in many areas. EPA also hopes to
help states maximize the efficiency and cost effectiveness of their I/M
programs by allowing them to eliminate functionally redundant testing
requirements. That said, it should be pointed out that it is not the
goal of this proposal to provide comprehensive guidance on how to
successfully implement OBD-I/M testing in an I/M program. Separate
guidance addressing the non-regulatory aspects of OBD-I/M
implementation will be issued by EPA in conjunction with today's
proposal and made available to the public via EPA's web site and by
request to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this document.
Today's proposed amendments are based upon EPA's findings gathered
during three separate OBD-I/M pilot studies, which focused on the
following aspects of OBD-I/M testing: (1) OBD's effectiveness as
compared to existing exhaust emission testing; (2) OBD's effectiveness
as compared to existing evaporative system testing; and (3) the unique
implementation issues associated with incorporating checks of the OBD
system into a traditional I/M setting. Elements of today's proposal are
also based upon EPA's discussions with states regarding their
preparedness for OBD-I/M testing as well as on recommendations made by
the OBD Workgroup of the Mobile Source Technical Review Subcommittee
established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The
results of those pilot studies and the FACA workgroup recommendations
can be found in the docket for this proposal. Copies of those materials
may be obtained from the docket directly, or by contacting the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
III. Authority
Authority for the rule changes proposed in this document is granted
to EPA by sections 182, 202, 207, and 301 of the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.).
IV. Background of the Proposed Amendments
The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or Act) requires EPA to
set guidelines for states to follow in designing and running both basic
and enhanced I/M programs. The Act also established certain minimum
design specifications for these programs, including, among other
things, a requirement that both basic and enhanced I/M programs conduct
periodic inspections of the onboard diagnostic (OBD) system of vehicles
so equipped. When EPA published the original I/M rule in 1992,
emission-based federal certification standards for OBD were still being
developed. To address the Act's OBD-I/M requirement, EPA reserved
sections in the 1992 I/M rule to be amended at some future date.
Although the federal requirement for OBD as an element of vehicle
design began with model year (MY) 1994, manufacturers were allowed to
request waivers on vehicles for MY 1994-95, so that the current
generation of OBD (also known as OBDII) was not required on all light-
duty cars and trucks sold in this country until MY 1996. On August 6,
1996, EPA published amendments to the I/M rule establishing OBD-I/M
performance standard and SIP requirements. The 1996 amendments also
specified data collection, analysis, and summary reporting requirements
for the OBD-I/M testing element; established OBD test equipment
requirements and the OBD test result reporting format; and identified
those conditions that would result in either an OBD-I/M failure or
rejection. Lastly, the August 6, 1996 amendments revised 40 CFR part
85, subpart W to establish OBD-I/M as an official performance warranty
short test under section 207(b) of the Act.
At the time the original OBD-I/M requirements were established, it
was not practical to evaluate the real-world, in-use performance of OBD
because the vehicles in question were still too new and the number of
those vehicles in need of repair were too few to make pilot testing
worthwhile.\1\ Therefore, in 1998, EPA further amended its OBD-
I/M requirements to delay the date by which I/M programs must begin OBD
testing to no later than January 1, 2001
One of the primary reasons for delaying the deadline for beginning
OBD-I/M testing was to give EPA time to evaluate the OBD check as an I/
M program element and to give states time to prepare for
implementation. In conducting its evaluation of OBD, however, EPA found
that identifying and recruiting OBD-equipped vehicles in need of repair
proved more difficult and time-consuming than originally anticipated.
As a result, EPA has only recently completed its preliminary assessment
of OBD effectiveness and implementation issues. During the course of
these evaluations, however, it became clear that certain regulatory
changes were needed to ensure the smooth implementation of OBD-I/M
testing by the states. EPA is therefore proposing to further extend the
deadline for OBD-I/M start-up from January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2002,
to give states the time necessary to address the issues raised by
today's proposed amendments. This element of today's proposal is
discussed in more detail below, under section A, ``Amendments to Extend
the Implementation Deadline.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ It may be argued that such is still the case, especially
given the difficulty EPA experienced trying to find MY 1996 and
newer OBD-equipped vehicles with naturally occurring OBD failures to
participate in its pilot studies. EPA recently completed testing and
has begun analyzing the results from a study of high mileage, OBD-
equipped vehicles including 33 vehicles with mileages of 100,000
miles or more. EPA recognizes the need to continue its testing of
in-use, OBD-equipped vehicles, with particular attention being paid
to the durability and reliability of such systems on older, high
mileage vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's assessment of OBD is based upon data gathered during three
separate OBD-I/M pilot studies. The focus, general design, and results
of those studies are discussed briefly below. The complete results of
the pilot studies--including EPA's analysis of its findings--can be
found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this proposal, copies
of which are available in the docket or by contacting the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
The first pilot study focused on assessing the effectiveness of the
OBD check as an I/M test relative to the IM240, which is generally
recognized as the most rigorous and accurate tailpipe inspection
currently available for use by I/M programs. That said, the ``gold
standard'' for all I/M tests remains the Federal certification test for
new vehicles established under section 206(a)(1) of the Act (also known
as the Federal Test Procedure or FTP). Section 207(b) of the Act
requires that all I/M tests demonstrate a reasonable correlation to the
FTP. Therefore, in conducting its pilot testing, EPA compared both the
OBD-I/M and IM240 test results to the FTP results on a per-vehicle
basis. Between October 1997 and September 1999, 201 vehicles failing
either the IM240, the OBD-I/M check, or both were recruited for this
study; each received properly preconditioned, lab-grade IM240, OBD-I/M,
and FTP tests, both before and after repairs. What EPA found was that
not only did the OBD-I/M check catch most of the same high emitters
identified by the IM240 (while avoiding the vehicles falsely failed by
that particular test), it also identified vehicles in need of
maintenance and/or repair prior to their
[[Page 56846]]
becoming high emitters, thus acting not only as a pollution reduction
strategy, but also as a pollution prevention measure. The results of
this pilot are discussed in more detail below, under section B,
``Amendments to Reduce Testing Burden.''
The second pilot study focused on assessing the effectiveness of
OBD-I/M testing at identifying evaporative system failures, such as
leaks and purge system malfunction, and determining the emission-
reduction potential of correcting those failures, once identified. Like
the OBD tailpipe pilot discussed above, the OBD-I/M evaporative system
monitoring results were compared to the FTP results for the same
vehicles. Testing for this pilot ran from March 1999 to May 2000, and
included a total of 30 vehicles. Unlike the OBD tailpipe study
discussed above, the OBD evaporative pilot involved the use of induced
evaporative system failures, as opposed to the recruitment of actual,
in-use failures. Induced failures were used due to the difficulty EPA
had in finding MY 1996+ OBD-equipped vehicles with naturally occurring
evaporative system problems, which, in turn, was due to the relative
newness of the vehicles in question, and the observation that the vast
majority of naturally occurring problems were attributable to loose gas
caps. Use of induced evaporative system failures thus allowed EPA to
more thoroughly investigate the effectiveness of OBD systems in
detecting a variety of potential in-use failures. Unlike tailpipe
problems which are largely a function of mileage accumulation and
general wear-and-tear, evaporative system problems tend to be a
function of vehicle age, as the rubber components of the system lose
elasticity and become brittle and more leak-prone. What EPA found was
that in the vast majority of cases, the induced failure was accurately
identified by the OBD system, that substantial emission reductions were
achieved as a result of repairing the failures, and that the OBD
computer responded to repairs by correctly verifying that the failure
conditions had been removed (i.e., when the vehicle was operated to
reset the evaporative system readiness flags, no DTCs or illuminated
MILs were observed).
In addition to these findings, an earlier EPA-sponsored FTP testing
program showed high evaporative emissions from leaking gas caps.
Furthermore, in comparing the test results for gas cap tests versus
OBD-based evaporative system tests from the Wisconsin I/M program's
data, EPA found that the gas cap test failed considerably more vehicles
than were identified by the OBD evaporative system monitors alone. This
result is not too surprising, given the more stringent test criteria
for the gas cap test. Based on these findings, EPA believes that
continuing to conduct the gas cap check on OBD-equipped vehicles (and
replacing those gas caps that fail the check) is a good supplement to
OBD-I/M testing. EPA therefore recommends that the gas cap check be
conducted in concert with OBD testing. However, the gas cap check is
the only test that EPA recommends be continued in conjunction with OBD-
I/M testing, and for which additional credit will be available in
MOBILE6. The results of the OBD evaporative pilot are discussed in more
detail below, under section B, ``Amendments to Reduce Testing Burden.''
The last of the three OBD-I/M pilot studies was aimed at
identifying the real-world implementation issues associated with OBD-I/
M testing and was conducted using data gathered from the Wisconsin
enhanced I/M test lanes, where OBD checks were being implemented
voluntarily by the state. One portion of the study was conducted under
contract to EPA by Sierra Research. This portion of the study looked at
data related to program implementation from May 1998 and July 1998 and
included paired IM240 and OBD testing on over 2,500 MY 1996+ OBD-
equipped vehicles. Separate from the Sierra Research analysis, EPA
looked at data from Wisconsin's I/M program \2\ for the last eight
months of 1999, which included IM240, gas cap, and OBD-I/M test results
on approximately 94,000 MY 1996+ vehicles. In reviewing these two sets
of real-world I/M data, EPA identified two OBD-related implementation
issues: (1) unset OBD readiness flags, and 2) atypical OBD data link
connector (DLC) locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Wisconsin is one of a handful of I/M states that have
voluntarily opted to begin OBD-I/M testing early. Currently,
Wisconsin is not failing vehicles on the basis of their OBD-I/M test
results. During the current phase-in period, OBD-I/M test results
are purely advisory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the first--unset readiness flags--EPA found that when it
excluded vehicles for which corrective measures are being taken by the
manufacturers, roughly 3% of MY 1996 vehicles have unset readiness
flags for the catalyst and/or evaporative system monitors, and that
this number dropped to below 1% for MY 1998 vehicles. This issue is
discussed in more detail below, under section E, ``OBD-I/M Rejection
Criteria Amendments.''
Regarding the second problem area--atypical DLC locations--EPA has
developed a database of DLC locations based upon its Wisconsin data and
manufacturer-supplied information. Electronic copies of this database
are available by contacting Arvon Mitcham at (734)214-4522. EPA has
found that the development of this database and increased inspector
experience has eliminated DLC location as a problem area in the
Wisconsin program.
Coincident with the pilot testing described above and the
development of today's proposal, EPA staff participated in an OBD
Workgroup which was formed by the Mobile Source Technical Review
Subcommittee, itself established under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA). The OBD Workgroup included members representing a broad
range of OBD and I/M stakeholders (for a list of workgroup members, see
the docket). EPA shared the results of its pilot studies with the OBD
Workgroup while those studies were still in process and used the
workgroup's suggestions and recommendations as a resource to guide the
studies' progress. During the course of these discussions, FACA
workgroup members made recommendations concerning regulatory revisions
needed to facilitate the smooth implementation of OBD-I/M testing.
Those recommendations have been considered and addressed in today's
proposal. Copies of the FACA workgroup recommendations are available
from the docket or by contacting the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
Today's proposals and EPA's rationale for each are discussed under
separate headings below.
A. Amendments To Extend the Implementation Deadline
1. What Was the Original Deadline?
The 1992 I/M rule was first amended in August 1996 to establish the
original OBD-I/M requirements. These requirements assumed dual testing
of OBD-equipped vehicles with both traditional I/M tests and the OBD-I/
M check, and included an implementation deadline of January 1, 1998 for
all I/M areas, with the exception of those areas qualifying for the
Ozone Transport Region (OTR) low enhanced performance standard, which
were allowed to start OBD testing one year later, by January 1, 1999.
Although testing of the OBD system was required to start in 1998 or
1999, depending upon the area, states were not required to fail
vehicles on the basis of OBD-I/M testing until January 1, 2000. The
first cycle of OBD-
I/M testing was intended to be advisory and was to be conducted
[[Page 56847]]
mainly as a means of gathering data on the effectiveness of OBD checks
relative to other, more traditional I/M tests. At the time the original
OBD-I/M requirements were promulgated in 1996, OBD-equipped vehicles
were still brand new and EPA had no basis for affording SIP credit for
what was essentially an untested test type. EPA's original intention
was to analyze data gathered by the states during the first, advisory
phase of OBD-I/M testing, and to use this analysis as the basis for
establishing SIP credit during the second, and mandatory phase of OBD-
I/M.
Subsequent to the original 1996 requirements, EPA concluded that it
was not appropriate to require states to perform what amounted to
mandatory pilot testing on behalf of the Agency. Therefore, on May 4,
1998, EPA revised its original OBD-I/M requirements to delay the date
by which I/M programs were to begin OBD-I/M testing to no later than
January 1, 2001. The goal of this delay was to give EPA time to
evaluate the OBD check as an I/M program element based on its own pilot
testing, to develop an appropriate level of SIP credit for OBD-I/M
testing, to determine whether dual testing was necessary or desirable,
and to give states time to better prepare for the eventual
implementation of OBD-I/M testing.
2. What Regulatory Change Does EPA Propose?
In conducting its evaluation of OBD-I/M testing, EPA found that
identifying and recruiting OBD-equipped vehicles in need of repair
proved more difficult and time-consuming than originally anticipated.
As a result, EPA has only recently completed its preliminary assessment
of OBD effectiveness. Nevertheless, based upon this assessment, it is
clear that rule changes are needed to ensure the smooth implementation
of OBD-
I/M testing by the states. EPA is therefore proposing to further extend
the deadline for OBD-I/M start-up from January 1, 2001 to January 1,
2002, to give states the time necessary to address the issues raised by
today's proposed amendments. EPA believes that such a delay is
appropriate, given the changes needed, and the lateness of these
proposed changes relative to the current 2001 deadline.
EPA would also like to solicit comment on whether a slightly longer
delay is necessary, given the states' possible need to revise rules,
software, test procedures, SIPs, et cetera to address today's proposed
amendments. EPA asks that states also consider the role that public
outreach and technician training will play in their preparation for
OBD-I/M testing in conjunction with their response to this request for
comments.
B. Amendments To Reduce Testing Burden
1. Does OBD Technology Work?
The OBD-I/M test effectiveness pilot studies for tailpipe and
evaporative emission testing had two primary goals: (1) To determine
whether or not OBD technology was actually meeting its design
expectations in the real world, in terms of identifying high emitting
vehicles and vehicles in need of repair and/or maintenance and (2) to
determine whether OBD-I/M checks can replace traditional I/M tests like
the IM240 and the purge and pressure tests without a significant loss
in emission reductions. With regard to the first goal, EPA found that
OBD identified nearly all of the vehicles later confirmed as high
emitters on the FTP. Furthermore, EPA found that OBD frequently
identified vehicles in need of repair and/or maintenance prior to their
actually becoming high emitters, thus preventing high emissions as
opposed to simply reducing them after the fact. Therefore, EPA
concluded that OBD technology is successfully meeting its design
expectations in the real world.
With regard to the second goal, the OBD tailpipe and OBD
evaporative system effectiveness pilots reached slightly different
conclusions regarding whether or not OBD-I/M checks can completely
replace existing I/M tests. Therefore, we will look at the two pilots
separately, starting with the OBD tailpipe effectiveness study.
2. Can OBD Replace Tailpipe Testing?
During the OBD tailpipe effectiveness pilot, EPA found that while
the pass/fail test results for the IM240 and OBD-I/M check frequently
agreed, a significant portion of the vehicles tested failed the IM240
while passing the OBD-I/M check and vice versa. In cases where the OBD-
I/M and IM240 test results disagreed, EPA had to determine which test
was correct. In investigating these results, EPA focused on the
vehicles which passed the OBD-I/M check while failing the IM240 in the
lane. What EPA found when it retested these vehicles on the IM240 under
quality-controlled, lab-grade conditions was that in most cases the
lane IM240 failures were, in fact, false failures.\3\ This suggests
that in the I/M lane environment, the OBD-I/M check at least has the
advantage of not falsely failing the same vehicles as the IM240--a
consumer protection benefit, if not necessarily an environmental
one.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ It should be noted that false failures are an inherent
element in any ``short test'' approximation of the FTP. In the case
of the IM240, false failures in the lane can be greatly reduced
through the use of proper preconditioning, second-chance testing,
and other quality control measures.
\4\ False failures can have a negative environmental impact to
the extent that they erode public confidence in and support of the
program. EPA is also aware of anecdotal evidence that suggests the
possibility that attempts to ``repair'' vehicles that are not broken
can actually increase emissions on a vehicle that should have passed
in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other cases, the OBD-I/M check resulted in failing vehicles that
both passed the IM240 and FTP. Though for a traditional tailpipe test
these would constitute false failures, OBD is not a traditional
tailpipe test. Traditional tailpipe tests sample exhaust emissions as
they leave the tailpipe, whereas OBD monitors the status of individual
emission control components. Unlike a traditional tailpipe test, OBD-I/
M can identify vehicle emission control problems before the emissions
themselves are out of control. OBD does this by identifying not only
emission control components that are broken, but also those that are in
need of maintenance prior to failure. Where traditional I/M tests can
only measure the problem once the emission control system has failed,
OBD (if heeded) can actually prevent the failure from happening in the
first place (and thereby prevent a relatively inexpensive problem from
leading to a significantly more costly repair bill).
Although EPA did find some vehicles during its pilot testing for
which the malfunction that triggered the original DTC could not be
reproduced, we do not believe Malfunction-Not-Reproduced (MNR) vehicles
will constitute a significant problem in operating I/M programs. EPA
believes that most of the MNR vehicles identified during the course of
the pilot testing were the result of the recruitment procedures used in
the pilot, and not an inherent problem with OBD-I/M itself. Under the
pilot, vehicles were recruited as soon as the MIL was illuminated--not
an optimum strategy for OBD, which is designed to detect intermittent
problems like misfire, but one which was necessitated by the scarcity
of vehicles with any MIL illumination at all. Under EPA's OBD
requirements, a MIL lit for a random misfire (or other intermittent
system fault) may be extinguished after three subsequent driving cycles
of similar operation in which the system fault does not reoccur; after
forty warm-up cycles without further fault detection, the DTC that
caused the original MIL illumination may be erased. Under the pilot
study,
[[Page 56848]]
however, such vehicles were recruited before the OBD system had a
chance to clear itself, and therefore fell into the MNR category. In
its discussions with the repair industry concerning OBD-identified
intermittent problems such as misfire and fuel trim problems, EPA has
found that vehicles it identified as MNR during its pilot testing are
frequently receiving relevant, preventative maintenance in the real
world to ensure that the original malfunction does not reoccur and that
the MIL, once cleared, stays off. This issue is discussed in more
detail in the draft Technical Support Document (TSD) included in the
docket for this proposal.
Based upon the above criteria, EPA concluded that OBD-I/M checks
are superior to the IM240 because they: (1) Identify the same true
failures as IM240; (2) do not identify the same false failures as
IM240; and (3) identify vehicles in need of repair and/or maintenance
prior to actual failure of the emission control system, thus preventing
excess emissions in the first place. In turn, EPA concluded that there
is little environmental value added in requiring states to perform both
the IM240 and the OBD-I/M check on MY 1996+ vehicles. Furthermore,
since the IM240 is considered the most accurate traditional tailpipe
test available for I/M testing, these conclusions should also apply to
other tailpipe tests, such as the idle test and the Acceleration
Simulation Mode (ASM) test
3. Can OBD Replace Evaporative System Testing?
With regard to the OBD evaporative testing pilot, EPA focused on
determining whether OBD-I/M checks accurately identified induced
evaporative system failures and responded correctly when these failures
were repaired. Another goal of the pilot was to quantify the emission
reductions that resulted from correcting these evaporative system
failures. The effectiveness of the OBD-I/M check was evaluated relative
to the evaporative portion of the FTP. The induced failures included
missing gas caps, disconnected purge lines, 0.040 inch leaks in the gas
cap, vent line, and purge line, and 0.020 inch leaks in the gas cap.
What EPA found was that the majority of OBD-equipped vehicles responded
to the induced failures by lighting a MIL which then remained
extinguished after repair. A relatively small percentage of vehicles
(12% or 3 out of 25) did not illuminate the MIL after the failure was
induced and only one vehicle in the study continued to register high
evaporative emissions during SHED \5\ testing after repairs that turned
off the MIL. EPA considers these results impressive, compared to the
existing purge and fill-neck pressure tests, which both suffer from a
relatively high untestability rate due to accessability and material
composition problems for various makes and models (roughly 30% for pre-
OBD-equipped vehicles and over 85% for OBD-equipped vehicles). When it
comes to the OBD-I/M check, however, OBD-equipped vehicles are 100%
testable, by design (provided the Data Link Connector has not been
tampered--a condition which itself constitutes grounds for failure).
EPA therefore proposes to allow states currently doing the purge and
fill-neck pressure tests to drop those tests on MY 1996 and newer OBD-
equipped vehicles in favor of OBD-I/M checks on those same vehicles.
EPA also recommends that programs add or continue existing gas cap
tests in conjunction with OBD-I/M evaporative system testing, based
upon the finding that a separate gas cap check can find leaking gas
caps not designed to be found by OBD, and the known potential for such
leaks to produce high evaporative emissions, as noted earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The acronym SHED stands for Sealed Housing for Evaporative
Determination. SHED testing is part of the evaporative portion of
the FTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Why is a Rule Change Needed To Permit Traditional I/M Tests To Be
Replaced With OBD?
As currently written, the I/M rule requires states to add OBD
testing to their I/M programs beginning no later than January 1, 2001.
Although the rule does not explicitly state that I/M programs must
conduct both their pre-existing I/M test(s) and the OBD check on OBD-
equipped vehicles, the current rule's data analysis and reporting
requirements include, among other things, the reporting of the number
and percentage of vehicles by model year passing the OBD test while
failing the
I/M emission test(s), and vice versa. The existence of these
requirements implies that both tests must be done under the I/M rule as
currently written. Furthermore, the fact that EPA has not provided SIP
credit modeling guidance with regard to OBD-I/M testing creates a
disincentive to states that might otherwise prefer to drop the
traditional I/M test(s) in favor of OBD-I/M testing on MY 1996+ OBD-
equipped vehicles.
Today EPA is proposing to correct this presumption by making an
affirmative determination that states are not required to conduct both
the traditional I/M tests and the OBD check on MY 1996+ OBD-equipped
vehicles. Given the fact that the Clean Air Act provides the states and
EPA little discretion regarding the inclusion of OBD testing in I/M
programs, the only flexibility EPA can offer states to prevent
functionally redundant testing is to allow them to drop the traditional
I/M tests on MY 1996+ OBD-equipped vehicles in favor of an OBD-I/M
check. EPA does not have the authority to allow states to take the
opposite course (i.e., we cannot approve I/M programs that ignore the
Act's OBD testing requirement in favor of the traditional
I/M tests on MY 1996+ OBD-equipped vehicles). Nevertheless--and
provided it does not interfere with a state's ability to meet the
relevant performance standard--states may still exempt the newest
vehicles from all testing for a set period of time. For example, a
state may be able to delay implementation of the OBD-I/M check past
January 1, 2002--if it can still meet the relevant performance standard
after exempting MY 1996+ vehicles from all testing. The ability to
exempt that many model years will vary on a state-by-state basis and is
driven by the relative distribution of old versus new vehicles in the
local fleet, as well as by which performance standard applies.
EPA believes that allowing states to exempt vehicles from the
program and to otherwise deviate from specific elements of the relevant
performance standard (provided the program achieves the same or better
emission reductions as achieved by the performance standard) is
consistent with the Clean Air Act, which draws a distinction between
what is required of EPA in establishing the enhanced I/M performance
standard, and what is minimally required of actual state programs. For
example, the CAA requires that EPA's enhanced I/M performance standard
include light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, but does not impose
a similar, explicit requirement on actual, operating state programs.
The CAA also requires that the enhanced I/M performance standard
include antitampering inspections, but does not require the same of
actual, operating state programs. Conversely, the CAA requires OBD-I/M
testing in all I/M programs--whether basic or enhanced--but does not
explicitly require EPA to include OBD-I/M testing in its performance
standard.
It may be argued that since ``[c]omputerized emission analyzers''
and OBD inspections are listed as two separate elements required in
enhanced I/M programs, that neither EPA nor the states have the
discretion to exempt subject vehicles from one or the other
[[Page 56849]]
test. EPA disagrees with this argument. Maintaining that states cannot
drop tailpipe emission testing from OBD-equipped vehicles based upon
this separate-element argument leads to the illogical corollary that
states also cannot exempt non-OBD-equipped vehicles from the OBD
inspection. Rather, EPA believes that as long as a state includes
emission testing on some segment of its subject vehicles, OBD-I/M
testing on the OBD-equipped portion of the fleet, and meets or exceeds
the emission reductions achieved by the relevant performance standard,
then it shall be considered in compliance with the CAA requirements
regarding minimum test type coverage. EPA believes the Act requires at
a minimum that computerized emission analyzers be used where emission
tests are conducted, and that OBD equipment be tested where cars are so
equipped.
5. What Regulatory Change is EPA Proposing?
EPA proposes to insert clarifying text making the affirmative
determination that states may drop traditional I/M tests on MY 1996+
OBD-equipped vehicles in favor of OBD-I/M checks in those sections of
the I/M rule currently addressing OBD-I/M testing requirements, such as
the performance standards, test procedure requirements, and data
reporting requirements.
C. SIP Credit Modeling Amendments
1. Will States Lose Credit for Dropping the Traditional I/M Tests on MY
1996+ OBD-Equipped Vehicles?
The Clean Air Act distinguishes between the minimum program
elements that were to be used by EPA in developing its I/M performance
standards, and those program elements which had to be adopted by the
state programs themselves to qualify as approvable I/M programs. For
example, in developing its enhanced I/M performance standard, EPA was
required to include both an antitampering inspection and an emission
test on all MY 1968+ vehicles, including light-duty cars and light-duty
trucks, using a centralized network and annual testing. States, on the
other hand, have the option of designing biennial and/or decentralized
I/M programs, are not required to include antitampering inspections,
and can exempt as many vehicles as they want--provided they can still
meet or exceed the applicable performance standard in terms of emission
reductions. States also have flexibility with regard to the type of
test performed and which model years are covered. In fact, to improve
the cost effectiveness of their programs, states routinely exempt the
newest vehicles in their fleets for two or more years, due to the very
low statistical likelihood that such vehicles will fail.
As suggested above, states already have the flexibility to exempt
MY 1996 and newer vehicles from traditional I/M tests, provided they
can make a demonstration that they still meet the applicable
performance standard, despite these exemptions. In practice, however,
there has been little incentive for states to exempt these vehicles
because doing so would result in a loss of the emission reductions they
could model as part of their I/M SIPs, thus jeopardizing their ability
to demonstrate that they meet the applicable performance standard. This
shortfall would only grow for later evaluation years as a larger
proportion of the fleet fell into the category of MY 1996 and newer
vehicles. Performing the required OBD-I/M check on these vehicles would
do nothing to offset the SIP credit shortfall because the MOBILE5
emission factor model used for projecting SIP credits does not
currently include credits for OBM-I/M testing, and EPA has not provided
guidance on how to address OBM-I/M testing in SIPs prior to release of
MOBILE6. Therefore, even though EPA's pilot studies suggest that OBM-I/
M testing does produce real-world emission reductions, without EPA's
proposed action today, states could be compelled to continue
functionally redundant testing, just so they can claim the credits
needed to satisfy a paperwork modeling requirement.
The reason that the MOBILE5 model does not include OBM-I/M credits
is because when the model was developed in the early 1990s, neither OBD
certification nor OBM-I/M testing requirements had been established. As
a result, there was no real-world data upon which to determine how much
credit OBM-I/M testing should get, and whether this credit should
replace or be added to the credit already assessed for the traditional
I/M tests. Although the next iteration of the MOBILE model--MOBILE6--
will include separate and explicit OBM-I/M credit, that version is
still in development and is not currently available for states to use
in preparing their SIPs. In the interim between MOBILE5 and MOBILE6,
EPA proposes that states account for the replacement of traditional I/M
tests with OBM-I/M testing by assuming that OBM-I/M testing does not
get less credit than the test(s) that it is replacing. This assessment
of ``no credit loss'' is based upon the pilot testing discussed earlier
and addressed in detail in the TSD. In short, EPA has concluded that
the OBM-I/M check is at least as effective as all other available I/M
tests, with the exception of the gas cap pressure test--which is the
only test EPA recommends states continue in conjunction with OBM-I/M
testing for OBD-equipped vehicles. MOBILE6, when it is released, will
reflect this guidance (i.e., a modeling run that includes both
traditional I/M testing and OBM-I/M testing on OBD-equipped vehicles
will generate no more credit than if only OBM-I/M were assumed for
those vehicles--with the exception of the gas-cap pressure test, for
which additional credit will be available). Therefore, under the rule
EPA is proposing today, states that opt to drop their traditional I/M
tests for OBD-equipped vehicles in favor of OBM-I/M checks will not
have to remodel their I/M credits prior to mandatory use of MOBILE6 for
the next iteration of the states' other SIP modeling requirements that
include
I/M.
2. What Regulatory Change is EPA Proposing?
EPA proposes to revise the OBD sections of the I/M performance
standards to indicate that for modeling purposes, the OBM-I/M testing
segment of the performance standard overlaps but does not add to the
credit already assessed for testing MY 1996+ vehicles. Furthermore,
prior to release of MOBILE6, the credit from OBM-I/M testing will
replace (as opposed to being added to) the credit already assessed for
the testing of MY 1996+ vehicles in the states' I/M SIPs. Therefore
traditional I/M tests can be dropped on MY 1996+ vehicles in favor of
OBM-I/M testing on those same vehicles without affecting an area's
ability to meet the applicable performance standard.
3. Is EPA Proposing To Give Different Areas Different Levels of Credit
for Doing the Same Test?
Prior to release of MOBILE6, EPA is not proposing to proactively
``give'' states SIP credit for OBM-I/M testing; rather, we are
proposing to ``not deduct'' credit from those areas that drop their
existing, non-gas-cap-based I/M inspections on OBD-equipped vehicles in
favor of OBM-I/M testing on that same subset of subject vehicles. EPA
understands how this may seem like a distinction without a difference,
the practical impact of which is that areas performing an idle test as
their tailpipe test will only get idle-level credit for OBM-I/M, while
those areas doing IM240 will get IM240-level credit for OBM-I/M. The
fact is that both areas will get the exact same level of credit for
[[Page 56850]]
OBM-I/M--once MOBILE6 is released. Prior to that release, the only
credit-assessment tool EPA has to offer states is MOBILE5--a model
which simply was not designed to account for OBM-I/M. MOBILE5 and
MOBILE6 are sufficiently different from one another that any surrogate
method EPA would propose to ``trick'' MOBILE5 into modeling OBM-I/M
credits is bound to produce erroneous results--results which, more
likely than not, would produce temporary, ``paper'' credits that would
disappear once areas were called upon to remodel their I/M programs
using MOBILE6. EPA believes that maintaining the status quo with regard
to I/M SIP credits while allowing states to drop their non-gas-cap-
based, traditional I/M tests on OBD-equipped vehicles in favor of OBM-
I/M for those same vehicles is the most responsible and conservative
approach we can take during this interim period between models, given
the known differences between the two models. Nevertheless, EPA
welcomes comment on alternative approaches for assessing OBM-I/M credit
during this interim period between mobile source emission factor
models. Currently, MOBILE6 is scheduled for release by the end of
calendar year 2000, and OBM-I/M will be included as a separate,
modelable and fully-credited program element as part of that model.
D. OBD-I/M Failure Criteria Amendments
1. What Are the Current Failure Criteria?
On August 6, 1996, EPA identified the list of Diagnostic Trouble
Codes (DTCs) that constitute the OBD-I/M failure criteria at 40 CFR
85.2207(d). These criteria were then echoed in 40 CFR 85.2223(b) which
identifies the required DTCs that are to be listed as part of the OBD-
I/M test report. Currently, the DTC-based failure criteria for OBD-I/M
is limited to a subset of power train (or P-code) DTCs. If a vehicle is
identified through an I/M program as having a Malfunction Indicator
Light (MIL) commanded on for one or more of these P-codes, then Federal
regulations require that the vehicle fail the inspection.
As part of the OBD-I/M implementation pilot study, EPA discovered
that using only a subset of DTCs (as opposed to all DTCs that lead to
the MIL being commanded on) undermines the potential of OBD to reduce
and prevent excess emissions. The problem is that once the MIL is lit
for a relatively minor problem the system is effectively eclipsed,
should a more significant problem develop between I/M inspections.
However, one of the significant advantages of OBD systems relative to
traditional I/M is its ability to inform motorists of a problem in
between inspections. Ideally, once the MIL has been commanded on, the
motorist is aware that there is a problem with the vehicle that needs
correction and will respond by getting the vehicle repaired well before
such repairs are required by the I/M program. Repairing the vehicle in
a timely manner can also help prevent minor problems from becoming
major ones, thus saving the owner money in the long run. Under such a
scenario, the I/M program is the backstop of last resort that enforces
compliance with the OBD system. If the I/M program allows vehicles to
complete the testing process without extinguishing the MIL, the OBD
system will be effectively invalidated until the next inspection, and
the public's responsiveness to OBD MILs will be eroded.
2. What Regulatory Change Does EPA Propose?
Given the above considerations, EPA is today proposing to simplify
the DTC-based OBD-I/M failure criteria to include any DTC that results
in the MIL being commanded on. Additionally, in the event that the OBD
scan reveals DTCs that have been set but for which the MIL has not been
commanded on, EPA recommends that the motorist be advised that a
problem may be pending but we do not propose to require that the
vehicle be failed at this time (unless other, non-DTC-based failure
criteria have been met, such as a failed bulb check).
Given the above discussion concerning the MIL eclipsing effect and
out-of-cycle OBD response, it is important to also note what EPA is not
proposing with this document. Although voluntary compliance with OBD on
the part of individual motorists prior to mandatory I/M testing
represents the ideal, given OBD's potential, EPA realizes that the
backstop of mandatory I/M is still needed to ensure compliance of these
vehicles. Therefore, EPA is not proposing that OBD-equipped vehicles be
exempt from participating in the periodic inspection process. The
mandatory, periodic nature of I/M and the I/M infrastructure remain
unchanged by today's proposal. Whether or not they are OBD-equipped,
subject vehicles must still be presented for periodic inspection and
must demonstrate compliance with all applicable I/M program
requirements at an I/M test facility prior to registration in
registration-based programs. OBD-equipped vehicles will just be subject
to a different kind of periodic inspection once they show up at the
lane (i.e., the OBD scan) while non-OBD-equipped vehicles will continue
to receive the more traditional tailpipe and/or evaporative system
tests.
3. Will Increasing the Number of Possible OBD-I/M Failure Criteria
Increase the Burden on Motorists?
While simplifying the failure criteria to all DTCs leading to MIL
illumination will greatly simplify the state's administration of the
OBD-I/M inspection, a logical biproduct of that simplification is that
more motorists will be failed for OBD-I/M checks under the revised
criteria than under the current regulations. Looking at six months'
worth of OBD-I/M data from the Wisconsin I/M program, EPA found that
less than 0.5% of the OBD-equipped vehicles tested had MILs lit for
DTCs falling outside the current failure criteria. Furthermore, EPA
believes that the net impact of today's proposal will be a significant
lessening of the test burden on motorists, since they will be subjected
to fewer tests overall under the proposal than would be the case
otherwise (i.e., a single, sixty second OBD-I/M test versus tailpipe,
evaporative system, and OBD-I/M tests, which can take five minutes or
longer to perform). Allowing states to drop traditional I/M tests in
favor of
OBD-I/M--EPA believes--will reduce the overall failure rate for OBD-
equipped vehicles, relative to current requirements.
4. How Should Waivers Be Addressed Under OBD-I/M Testing Criteria?
Currently, both the Clean Air Act and the I/M rule provide a
minimum expenditure value for state programs which allow the waiver of
vehicles failing the I/M inspection from further repair obligation for
one test cycle once a certain, minimum amount has been spent on
relevant repairs. For basic I/M programs, these minimum expenditures
are $75 for pre-1981 model year vehicles, and $200 for MY 1981 and
newer vehicles; for enhanced I/M programs, the Act specifies a minimum
expenditure for all vehicles of $450 adjusted to reflect the difference
in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) between the previous year and 1989.
Neither the rule nor the Act addresses the OBD-I/M check when it comes
to qualifying for waivers. However, EPA is formally recommending that
states not allow waivers for MY 1996 and newer OBD-equipped vehicles
prior to extinguishing the MIL and correcting the cause of any DTCs for
which the MIL was
[[Page 56851]]
illuminated. EPA also recommends that states consider providing repair
subsidies or some other form of financial assistance to address
hardship cases that would otherwise be addressed through the waiver
process.
EPA makes this recommendation because of the fundamental difference
between how OBD-equipped vehicles and non-OBD-equipped vehicles are
diagnosed and repaired. EPA believes that the minimum expenditure
waiver makes sense for traditional tailpipe and/or evaporative emission
test-based repairs because such tests provide little concrete
information concerning the specific cause of failure. Therefore, the
waiver helps protect consumers from trial-and-error repairs that amount
to little more than throwing parts at an insufficiently isolated
problem. OBD, on the other hand, is specifically designed to help limit
the opportunity for trial-and-error repairs by linking DTCs to specific
components and subsystems. OBD does not just tell the repair technician
that there is a problem, but also what kind of problem and
approximately where in the overall system it is occurring. Furthermore,
if an OBD-equipped vehicle is waived from further repair without
extinguishing the MIL, the practical effect would be to render the OBD
system invalid until the next test cycle due to the MIL eclipsing
effect discussed earlier. EPA believes that allowing waivers under
these circumstances sends the wrong message concerning the importance
of responding to the MIL and defeats the whole purpose for which OBD
was designed. We therefore recommend that states bar MY 1996 and newer
OBD-equipped vehicles from participating in their waiver programs if
such vehicles have a MIL commanded on at the time they apply for a
waiver. EPA welcomes public comments and suggestions on alternative
methods for addressing the OBD-I/M waiver issues discussed here.
E. OBD-I/M Rejection Criteria Amendments
1. What Are the Current Rejection Criteria?
Current Federal regulations for OBD-I/M testing require that I/M
programs reject from further testing any MY 1996+ OBD-equipped vehicles
that are found to have unset readiness flags. It is important to note
that ``rejection'' is distinct from ``failure.'' In the context of OBD-
I/M, rejection is triggered by a vehicle's readiness status while
failure is related to the presence of DTCs that command the MIL to be
lit. If DTCs are present and the MIL is commanded on, the vehicle is
failed, the initial test process is considered complete and an official
test report is generated. If, on the other hand, unset readiness flags
are present, the vehicle is rejected and the test process is aborted.
The reason vehicles with unset readiness flags are rejected but not
failed is because an unset readiness flag is not necessarily an
indication of an emission problem. Rather, it is an indication that
certain monitor(s) that are intended to determine whether or not there
may be an emission problem have not been run to evaluate the system. In
the case of rejection, the issue of whether or not the vehicle requires
repairs is deferred until the readiness flag(s) have been set and the
monitor(s) run.
The current I/M requirements are inadequate with regard to OBD
readiness because there are many reasons why a readiness flag may not
be set when an OBD-equipped vehicle arrives at the I/M test site--some
of them wholly legitimate and beyond the control of the motorist. For
one thing, not all OBD system monitors are run continuously. Some
monitors are run every time a vehicle is driven, while others may only
run after a certain combination of operating conditions has been met.
Within Federal guidelines, manufacturers still have a fair degree of
discretion in establishing the monitor-triggering protocols used and
these tend to vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, as well as from
model to model. As a result, it is possible that a vehicle may not have
been operated under the conditions necessary to trigger one or more
monitors before showing up for an OBD-I/M check. It is also possible
that the monitors did run, but were then reset when the battery was
disconnected during routine maintenance on the vehicle, or in an
attempt to fraudulently extinguish the MIL and clear DTCs prior to OBD-
I/M testing. Although disconnecting the battery will temporarily clear
any DTCs that are present, these will eventually be triggered again, as
the monitors in question are rerun. In fact, readiness codes were
developed specifically to prevent vehicle owners from evading the test
by disconnecting their batteries just prior to testing. In most cases
the readiness flag can be set by running the vehicle under load for
some period of time prior to resubmitting it for testing.
As part of its analysis of Wisconsin's OBD-I/M data, EPA found that
a small percentage of the earliest OBD-equipped vehicles showed up at
the I/M test lanes with unset readiness flags that could not be readily
resolved by additional, normal vehicle operation. The percentage of
vehicles experiencing this particular problem is small, and shrinking
for newer model years. Excluding vehicles for which corrective measures
are being taken by the manufacturers in the form of service campaigns
and OBD computer reprogramming, EPA found that roughly 3% of MY 1996
vehicles had this readiness problem at the time of their initial OBD-I/
M check and that this number dropped to below 1% for MY 1998 vehicles
receiving their first OBD-I/M check. The majority of these unset
readiness flags were for the catalyst and/or evaporative system, which
are known to be difficult to set. Based upon these findings, EPA
concluded that requiring rejection of vehicles for any unset readiness
flag is unnecessarily restrictive, and that flexibility in this area is
therefore warranted. Furthermore, EPA believes that the practical
impact of allowing this flexibility is negligible, especially because
an unset readiness flag is not the same thing as an emission problem
and because of the likelihood that vehicles with unset readiness flags
during one test cycle will be ``ready'' in time for subsequent test
cycles. Lastly, the number of vehicles involved is dwarfed by other
perennial I/M issues such as the non-compliance, drop-out and waiver
rates, which are known to have a direct impact on the emission
reduction effectiveness of a program.
2. What Regulatory Change Does EPA Propose?
Although EPA believes it is important in most cases to verify an
OBD-equipped vehicle's readiness status, we do not believe that the
motorist should be penalized for something beyond his/her control.
Therefore, EPA is today proposing to allow states to complete the
testing process on MY 1996-2000 vehicles with two or fewer unset
readiness flags; for MY 2001 and newer vehicles, the testing process
could still be complete provided there is no more than one unset
readiness flag. This does not mean that these vehicles are exempt from
the OBD-I/M check. The complete MIL check and scan must be run in all
cases, and the vehicle still must be failed if the MIL is commanded on.
The vehicle should continue to be rejected if it is MY 1996-2000 and
has three or more unset readiness flags or is MY 2001 or newer and has
two or more unset readiness flags. This proposal is based upon EPA's
findings regarding readiness status from Wisconsin's OBD-I/M data
discussed above and also reflects a FACA workgroup recommendation. It
is intended to reduce the potential for customer
[[Page 56852]]
inconvenience during this start-up phase of the transition to OBD-I/M
testing. We believe that the environmental impact of this exemption
will be negligible, given the small number of vehicles involved, the
likelihood that at least some of these readiness flags will have been
set in time for subsequent OBD-I/M checks, and the fact that an unset
readiness flag is not itself an indication of an emission problem.
Furthermore, both EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) are
currently working with vehicle manufacturers to address this issue and
further reduce the number of vehicles affected. Nevertheless, EPA
solicits public comment on alternative approaches to addressing the
readiness issue discussed here. In particular, EPA would like comment
on whether vehicles with unset readiness flags should receive a
traditional tailpipe and/or evaporative system test and whether
different tests should be required in lieu of OBD-I/M testing depending
upon which readiness flag has not been set.
F. Technical Amendment
The current I/M rule includes identical language regarding the
inclusion of OBD-I/M testing in both the enhanced and basic I/M
performance standards, with each standard assuming that, at a minimum,
OBD-I/M testing is being performed on all OBD-equipped light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks. While the Clean Air Act requires
enhanced I/M performance standards to cover both light-duty vehicles
and light-duty trucks, it does not require that level of coverage for
the basic I/M performance standard. Currently, all other elements of
the basic I/M performance standard (such as tailpipe testing coverage)
apply only to light-duty vehicles, but not light-duty trucks. The
inclusion of OBD-I/M testing on light-duty trucks in the basic I/M
performance standard is the result of a typographical error. We are
therefore proposing to correct this typographical error by deleting
reference to light-duty trucks in Sec. 51.352(c) of the I/M rule, which
establishes the basic I/M performance standard coverage requirements
for OBD-I/M testing.
V. Discussion of Major Issues
A. Emission Impact of the Proposed Amendments
Today's proposal clarifies existing flexibility currently available
to states with regard to exempting specific model years from specific
program requirements. It also provides an incentive for states to
optimize the efficiency and cost effectiveness of their existing
programs through the elimination of functionally redundant testing
methods by allowing such tests to be dropped without any reduction in
I/M SIP credit. Based upon the pilot data discussed in the TSD to this
proposal, EPA has concluded that there is little inherent environmental
benefit from requiring traditional I/M testing in addition to OBD-I/M
checks on MY 1996+ OBD-equipped vehicles, with the exception of the gas
cap pressure test. As a result, EPA believes that there is effectively
no negative environmental impact from providing an incentive for
eliminating these functionally redundant tests. EPA concludes that any
marginal environmental benefit that might result from dual testing of
OBD-equipped vehicles is far outweighed by the cost and inconvenience
of dual testing, as well as by the potential environmental loss
associated with ``fixing'' falsely failed vehicles.
B. Impact on Existing and Future I/M Programs
States with approved I/M SIPs will not have to remodel their I/M
programs if they choose to exempt MY 1996+ OBD-equipped vehicles from
traditional I/M tests in favor of OBD-I/M checks on those vehicles,
provided no other programmatic changes are made. If, however, a state
chooses to modify its program another way, then a revised
I/M SIP and new modeling may be necessary.\6\ Nevertheless, it is
important to note that today's proposed amendments are aimed at
lessening the overall burden on states while also improving program
efficiency and cost effectiveness; the proposal does not increase the
existing burden on states, provided states do not make other changes to
their programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For example, if a state which is currently employing a
centralized, test-only network design for its I/M program decides to
send MY 1996+ OBD-equipped vehicles to decentralized, test-and-
repair stations for the OBD-I/M check instead of to centralized,
test-only stations, this would constitute a fundamental change in
program design. A change like this would require the submission of a
revised I/M SIP including documented support for the associated
emission credit claimed, or a good faith estimate of the
effectiveness of the decentralized, test-and-repair portion of the
program along with a commitment to substantiate that estimate using
data from the operating program within 12 months of final,
conditional approval of the SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Economic Costs and Benefits
Today's proposed revisions provide states with an incentive to
increase the cost effectiveness and efficiency of their existing I/M
programs. The proposal, when finalized, will lessen rather than
increase the potential economic burden on states. Furthermore, states
are under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to modify existing plans
meeting the previously applicable requirements as a result of today's
proposal.
VII. Public Participation
EPA desires full public participation in arriving at final
decisions in this rulemaking action. EPA solicits comments on all
aspects of this proposal from all parties. Wherever applicable, full
supporting data and detailed analysis should also be submitted to allow
EPA to make maximum use of the comments. All comments should be
directed to the Air Docket, Docket No. A-2000-16.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation
It has been determined that these proposed amendments to the I/M
rule do not constitute a significant regulatory action under the terms
of Executive Order 12866 and this action is therefore not subject to
OMB review. Any impacts associated with these revisions do not
constitute additional burdens when compared to the existing I/M
requirements published in the Federal Register on November 5, 1992 (57
FR 52950) as amended. Nor do the proposed amendments create an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or otherwise adversely
affect the economy or the environment. The proposal is not inconsistent
with nor does it interfere with actions by other agencies. It does not
alter budgetary impacts of entitlements or other programs, and it does
not raise any new or unusual legal or policy issues.
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement
There are no additional information requirements in this proposed
rule which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget
under the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this proposal will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities and, therefore, is not subject to the requirement of a
Regulatory Impact Analysis. A small entity may include a small
government entity or jurisdiction. This certification is based on the
fact that the I/M areas impacted by the proposed rulemaking do not meet
the definition of a small government jurisdiction, that is,
``governments of cities, counties, towns,
[[Page 56853]]
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
population of less than 50,000.'' The basic and enhanced I/M
requirements only apply to urbanized areas with population in excess of
either 100,000 or 200,000 depending on location. Furthermore, the
impact created by the proposed action does not increase the preexisting
burden of the existing rules which this proposal seeks to amend.
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule where the estimated costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, will be $100 million or more.
Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule and is
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that
may be significantly impacted by the rule. To the extent that the rules
being proposed by this action would impose any mandate at all as
defined in section 101 of the Unfunded Mandates Act upon the state,
local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, as explained
above, this proposed rule is not estimated to impose costs in excess of
$100 million. Therefore, EPA has not prepared a statement with respect
to budgetary impacts. As noted above, this rule offers opportunities to
states that would enable them to lower economic burdens from those
resulting from the currently existing I/M rule.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation.
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. On the contrary, the intent of
today's proposed rule is to provide states greater flexibility with
regard to pre-existing regulatory and statutory requirements for
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
proposal.
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's
proposal does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of
Indian tribal governments. Today's proposal does not create a mandate
on tribal governments or create any additional burden or requirements
for tribal government. The proposal does not impose any enforceable
duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b)
of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this proposal.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined
under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA
interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This proposal is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not economically significant under Executive
Order 12866 and because it is based on technology performance and not
on health or safety risks.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary
consensus standards instead of government-unique standards in their
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods,
sampling and analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards
bodies. Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary
consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal
agencies like EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations
when an agency decides not to use available and
[[Page 56854]]
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
These proposed amendments do not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 85
Environmental protection, Confidential business information,
Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Research, Warranties.
Dated: September 12, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 51 and 85 of chapter
I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be
amended to read as follows:
PART 51--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart S--[Amended]
2. Section 51.351 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 51.351 Enhanced I/M performance standard.
* * * * *
(c) On-board diagnostics (OBD). The performance standard shall
include inspection of all 1996 and later light-duty vehicles and light-
duty trucks equipped with certified on-board diagnostic systems, and
repair of malfunctions or system deterioration identified by or
affecting OBD systems as specified in Sec. 51.357. For States using
some version of MOBILE5 prior to mandated use of the MOBILE6 and
subsequent versions of EPA's mobile source emission factor model, the
OBD-I/M portion of the State's program as well as the applicable
enhanced I/M performance standard may be assumed to be equal to the
tests previously covering MY 1996 and newer vehicles in both the
applicable performance standard and the I/M program contained in the
State's I/M State Implementation Plan (SIP), with the intention that
the inclusion of OBD-I/M testing in either case will neither increase
nor decrease the credit currently established or claimed. This interim
assumption shall apply even in the event that the State opts to
discontinue its current I/M tests on MY 1996 and newer vehicles in
favor of an OBD-I/M check on those same vehicles, with the exception of
the gas-cap evaporative system test. If a State currently claiming the
gas-cap test in its I/M SIP decides to discontinue that test on some
segment of its subject fleet previously covered, then the State will
need to revise its SIP and I/M modeling to quantify the resulting loss
in credit, per established modeling policy for the gas-cap pressure
test.
* * * * *
3. Section 51.352 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 51.352 Basic I/M performance standard.
* * * * *
(c) On-board diagnostics (OBD). The performance standard shall
include inspection of all 1996 and later light-duty vehicles equipped
with certified on-board diagnostic systems, and repair of malfunctions
or system deterioration identified by or affecting OBD systems as
specified in Sec. 51.357. For States using some version of MOBILE5
prior to mandated use of the MOBILE6 and subsequent versions of EPA's
mobile source emission factor model, the OBD-I/M portion of the State's
program as well as the applicable enhanced I/M performance standard may
be assumed to be equal to the tests previously covering MY 1996 and
newer vehicles in both the applicable performance standard and the I/M
program contained in the State's I/M State Implementation Plan (SIP),
with the intention that the inclusion of OBD-I/M testing in either case
will neither increase nor decrease the credit currently established or
claimed. This interim assumption shall apply even in the event that the
State opts to discontinue its current I/M tests on MY 1996 and newer
vehicles in favor of an OBD-I/M check on those same vehicles, with the
exception of the gas-cap evaporative system test. If a State currently
claiming the gas-cap test in its I/M SIP decides to discontinue that
test on some segment of its subject fleet previously covered, then the
State will need to revise its SIP and I/M modeling to quantify the
resulting loss in credit, per established modeling policy for the gas-
cap pressure test.
* * * * *
4. Section 51.356 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(6) to
read as follows:
Sec. 51.356 Vehicle coverage.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(6) States may also exempt MY 1996 and newer OBD-equipped vehicles
that receive an OBD-I/M inspection from the tailpipe, purge, and fill-
neck pressure tests (where applicable) without any loss of emission
reduction credit.
* * * * *
5. Section 51.357 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(5),
(a)(12), (b)(1) introductory text, (b)(4) and (d) introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 51.357 Test procedures and standards.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(5) Vehicles shall be rejected from testing if the exhaust system
is missing or leaking, or if the vehicle is in an unsafe condition for
testing. Beginning January 1, 2002, MY 1996 and newer vehicles shall be
rejected from testing if a scan of the OBD system reveals a ``not
ready'' status for three or more monitors on MY 1996 through MY 2000
vehicles, inclusive, or for two or more monitors on MY 2001 and newer
vehicles, as provided in 40 CFR 85.2222(c)(2). Once the cause for
rejection has been corrected, the vehicle must return for testing to
continue the testing process. Failure to return for testing after
rejection shall be considered non-compliance with the program, unless
the motorist can prove that the vehicle has been sold, scrapped, or is
otherwise no longer in operation within the program area.
* * * * *
(12) On-board diagnostic checks. Beginning January 1, 2002,
inspection of the on-board diagnostic (OBD) system on MY 1996 and newer
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks shall be conducted according
to the procedure described in 40 CFR 85.2222, at a minimum. This
inspection may be used in lieu of tailpipe, purge, and fill-neck
pressure testing. No additional emission reduction credit will be
afforded programs that conduct tailpipe, purge, and fill-neck pressure
testing in addition to OBD--I/M testing, with the exception of gas-cap-
only evaporative system testing, for which additional credit may still
be claimed.
* * * * *
(b) Test standards--(1) Emissions standards. HC, CO, and CO+CO2 (or
CO2 alone) emission standards shall be applicable to all vehicles
subject to the program with the exception of MY 1996 and newer OBD-
equipped light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, which will be held
to the requirements of 40 CFR 85.2207, at a minimum. Repairs
[[Page 56855]]
shall be required for failure of any standard regardless of the
attainment status of the area. NOX emission standards shall
be applied to vehicles subject to a transient test in ozone
nonattainment areas and in an ozone transport region, unless a waiver
of NOX controls is provided to the State under
Sec. 51.351(d) of this subpart.
* * * * *
(4) On-board diagnostic test standards. Vehicles shall fail the on-
board diagnostic test if they fail to meet the requirements of 40 CFR
85.2207, at a minimum. Failure of the on-board diagnostic test need not
result in failure of the vehicle inspection/maintenance test until
January 1, 2002.
* * * * *
(d) Applicability. In general, section 203(a)(3)(A) of the Clean
Air Act prohibits altering a vehicle's configuration such that it
changes from a certified to a non-certified configuration. In the
inspection process, vehicles that have been altered from their original
certified configuration are to be tested in the same manner as other
subject vehicles with the exception of MY 1996 and newer, OBD-equipped
vehicles on which the data link connector has been altered in such a
way as to make OBD system testing impossible. Such vehicles shall be
rejected from further testing until they have been restored to a
testable condition. Once the cause for rejection has been corrected,
the vehicle must return for testing to continue the testing process.
Failure to return for testing after rejection shall be considered non-
compliance with the program, unless the motorist can prove that the
vehicle has been sold, scrapped, or is otherwise no longer in operation
within the program area.
* * * * *
6. Section 51.358 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 51.358 Test equipment.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) Emission test equipment shall be capable of testing all subject
vehicles and shall be updated from time to time to accommodate new
technology vehicles as well as changes to the program. In the case of
OBD-based testing, the equipment used to access the onboard computer
shall be capable of testing all MY 1996 and newer, OBD-equipped light-
duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.
* * * * *
7. Section 51.366 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(xi),
(a)(2)(xii), (a)(2)(xv), (a)(2)(xvi), (a)(2)(xvii), (a)(2)(xviii), and
by removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(2)(xiii) and (a)(2)(xiv) to
read as follows:
Sec. 51.366 Data analysis and reporting.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(xi) Passing the on-board diagnostic check;
(xii) Failing the on-board diagnostic check;
(xiii) [Reserved]
(xiv) [Reserved]
(xv) Passing the on-board diagnostic check and failing the I/M gas
cap evaporative system test (if applicable);
(xvi) Failing the on-board diagnostic check and passing the I/M gas
cap evaporative system test (if applicable);
(xvii) Passing both the on-board diagnostic check and I/M gas cap
evaporative system test (if applicable);
(xviii) Failing both the on-board diagnostic check and I/M gas cap
evaporative system test (if applicable);
* * * * *
8. Section 51.373 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 51.373 Implementation deadlines.
* * * * *
(g) On-Board Diagnostic checks shall be implemented in all basic,
low enhanced and high enhanced areas as part of the I/M program by
January 1, 2002.
PART 85--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES
9. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart W--[Amended]
10. Section 85.2207 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(d) and adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 85.2207 On-board diagnostics test standards.
* * * * *
(d) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(f) A vehicle shall fail the on-board diagnostics test if the
malfunction indicator light is commanded to be illuminated for one or
more OBD diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs), as defined by SAE J2012. The
procedure shall be done in accordance with SAE J2012 Diagnostic Trouble
Code Definitions, (MAR92). This incorporation by reference was approved
by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of SAE J2012 may be obtained from the
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive,
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001. Copies may be inspected at the EPA Docket
No. A-94-21 at EPA's Air Docket, (LE-131) Room 1500 M, 1st Floor,
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC, or at the Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
11. Section 85.2222 is amended by revising paragraphs (c), (d)(1)
and (d)(2) and by adding new paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 85.2222 On-board diagnostic test procedures.
* * * * *
(c) The test system shall send a Mode $01, PID $01 request in
accordance with SAE J1979 to determine the evaluation status of the
vehicle's on-board diagnostic system. The test system shall determine
what monitors are supported by the on-board diagnostic system, and the
readiness evaluation for applicable monitors in accordance with SAE
J1979. The procedure shall be done in accordance with SAE J1979 ``E/E
Diagnostic Test Modes,'' (DEC91). This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of SAE J1979 may be obtained
from the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive,
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001. Copies may be inspected at the EPA Docket
No. A-94-21 at EPA's Air Docket (LE-131), Room 1500 M, 1st Floor,
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC, or at the Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
(1) Beginning January 1, 2002, if the readiness evaluation
indicates that any on-board tests are not complete the customer shall
be instructed to return after the vehicle has been run under conditions
that allow completion of all applicable on-board tests. If the
readiness evaluation again indicates that any on-board test is not
complete the vehicle shall be failed.
(2) An exception to paragraph (c)(1) of this section is allowed for
MY 1996 to MY 2000 vehicles, inclusive, with two or fewer unset
readiness monitors, and for MY 2001 and newer vehicles with no more
than one unset readiness monitor. Vehicles from those model years which
would otherwise pass the OBD inspection, but for the unset readiness
code(s) in question may be issued a passing certificate without being
required to operate the vehicle in such a way as to activate those
particular monitors. Vehicles from those
[[Page 56856]]
model years with unset readiness codes which also have diagnostic
trouble codes (DTCs) stored resulting in a lit malfunction indicator
light (MIL) should be failed, though setting the unset readiness flags
in question shall not be a prerequisite for passing the retest.
(d) * * *
(1) If the malfunction indicator status bit indicates that the
malfunction indicator light (MIL) has been commanded to be illuminated
the test system shall send a Mode $03 request to determine the stored
diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs). The system shall repeat this cycle
until the number of codes reported equals the number expected based on
the Mode 1 response. All DTCs resulting in MIL illumination shall be
recorded in the vehicle test record and the vehicle shall fail the on-
board diagnostic inspection.
(2) If the malfunction indicator light bit is not commanded to be
illuminated the vehicle shall pass the on-board diagnostic inspection,
even if DTCs are present.
* * * * *
(4) If the malfunction indicator light (MIL) does not illuminate at
all when the vehicle is in the key-on/engine-off (KOEO) condition, the
vehicle shall fail the on-board diagnostic inspection, even if no DTCs
are present and the MIL has not been commanded on.
12. Section 85.2223 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and
removing and reserving paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 85.2223 On-board diagnostic test report.
(a) Motorists whose vehicles fail the on-board diagnostic test
described in Sec. 85.2222 shall be provided with the on-board
diagnostic test results, including the codes retrieved, the name of the
component or system associated with each fault code, the status of the
MIL illumination command, and the customer alert statement as stated in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) [Reserved]
* * * * *
Sec. 85.2231 {Removed]
13. Section 85.2231 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(d).
[FR Doc. 00-24048 Filed 9-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P