I/M Program RequirementOn-Board Diagnostic Checks

SUMMARY: Today's action revises the motor vehicle Inspection/

Maintenance (I/M) Program Requirements. This rule establishes the

minimum requirements for inspecting vehicles equipped with on-board

diagnostic systems as part of the inspections required in basic and

enhanced Inspection/Maintenance programs. Inspection/Maintenance

programs are an important part of EPA's overall program to decrease the

emissions of harmful pollutants from motor vehicles and bring all areas

in the United States into attainment with the goals of the Clean Air

Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is effective October 7, 1996. The

incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this

regulation is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of

October 7, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in

Public Docket No. A-94-21. The docket is located at the Air Docket,

(LE-131) Room 1500 M, 1st Floor, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW,

Washington, DC, 20460. The docket may be inspected between 8:00 a.m.

and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying

docket material. Electronic copies of the preamble and the regulatory

text of this rulemaking are available on the Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network Bulletin

Board System (TTN BBS) and the Office of Mobile Sources' World Wide Web

cite, http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leila Cook, Office of Mobile Sources,

National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann

Arbor, Michigan, 48105. Telephone (313) 741-7820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Regulated Entities

II. Summary of Rule

III. Authority

IV. Public Participation

A. Two-Year Data Collection Period

B. Verifying Codes at Test Station

C. Consumer Acceptance

D. State Requirement for Exhaust and Evaporative Tests

E. Test Report

F. Unconfirmed Codes

G. Bi-directional Communication

H. Monitoring Engine Speed

I. Test Order

J. Key On-Engine Running vs. Key On-Engine Off

K. Warranty Coverage for OBD System

L. Fuel Economy Monitor

M. OBD Emission Credits

V. Economic Costs and Benefits

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

I. Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this action are those that are

required to implement Inspection/Maintenance programs. Regulated

categories and entities include:

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

Examples of regulated

Category entities

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

State and Local Government................ State and local governments

required to implement I/M

programs by the Clean Air

Act.

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

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this

action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware

could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities

not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether

your state or local government is regulated by this action, you should

examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 51.350 of title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the

applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Summary of Rule

Motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs are an

integral part of the effort to reduce mobile source air pollution. The

Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. (hereinafter

``the Act''), was prescriptive with respect to certain aspects of the

I/M program design. In particular, section 202(m)(3) of the Act directs

EPA to require on-board diagnostic (OBD) system checks as a component

of I/M programs. In addition, section 182(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act

requires that states revise their I/M programs within two years after

promulgation of regulations under section 202(m)(3) to meet the

requirements of those regulations.

With this action, EPA is establishing requirements for the

inspection of on-board diagnostic systems as part of I/M programs. This

action amends those sections of the Inspection/Maintenance Program

Requirements in subpart S, 40 CFR part 51 (November 5, 1992) that were

reserved for OBD requirements, and elsewhere as needed. This action

adds to sections of subpart S pertaining to data collection and

analysis as well as implementation deadlines. This action also adds to

appendix B of subpart S pertaining to test procedures. Finally, this

action adds to subpart W of 40 CFR part 85 pertaining to test

procedures, test equipment, and standards for failure for purposes of

the emission control system performance warranty.

Today's action establishes the test procedures and requirements for

the on-board diagnostic (OBD) computer test portion of the I/M test.

OBD testing of all 1996 and newer model year vehicles will be required

in all I/M programs (basic and enhanced) beginning January 1, 1998

except that areas in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region (OTR)

eligible to implement an OTR low enhanced I/M program must begin OBD

testing by January 1, 1999. Failure of the OBD test will not result in

mandatory repair until January 1, 2000. During this two year test-only

period, EPA in cooperation with states and motor vehicle manufacturers

hopes to gather data on the effectiveness of OBD.

III. Authority

Authority for these actions is granted to EPA by sections

182(a)(2)(B)(ii), 182(c)(3), 202(m)(3), 207(b), and 301(a) of the Clean

Air Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7511a(a)(2)(B)(ii), 7511a(c)(3),

7521(m)(3), 7541(b), and 7601(a).

IV. Public Participation

A. Two-Year Data Collection Period

1. Summary of Proposal

The proposal required that all vehicles subject to an I/M test

requirement undergo an OBD test beginning January 1, 1998. The proposal

also stated that any vehicle which failed the OBD portion of the I/M

test would fail the I/M test as of January 1, 1998. One of the possible

reasons for failing the OBD test would be if all the vehicle's

readiness codes were not cleared when it arrived at the test station.

The readiness code status provides an indication of whether or not

[[Page 40941]]

a specific monitor has been exercised. A code is set when the monitor

has not yet had a sufficient chance to make an accurate evaluation of

the component's operation. The readiness code is cleared when an

accurate determination has been made, thus indicating I/M readiness.

2. Summary of Comments

On September 26, 1995, several vehicle manufacturers met with EPA

to discuss the OBD rule. At this meeting and again in written comments,

manufacturers expressed the concern that vehicles would be rejected

from testing because all the OBD readiness codes for the vehicle would

not be cleared when the vehicle arrived at the test station. In

particular, the manufacturers were concerned that extreme cold weather

or high altitude might prevent certain readiness codes from clearing.

Since that time, three manufacturers have notified EPA that there were

problems with the design of the OBD readiness codes in a portion of the

1996 model year fleet and that it was likely that all of the codes

would not be cleared when these vehicles arrived at the test station

even though the vehicle was functioning normally. Some commenters also

noted that OBD system checks should be incorporated in a manner that

encourages public support and acceptance of OBD systems, especially

during the early stages of implementation when technology for OBD

systems is still relatively new. To deal with these issues,

stakeholders suggested that a data collection period on the OBD system

would be prudent. This would give EPA, the states, and the

manufacturers time to assess the effectiveness of the OBD tests,

identify any problems, and implement refinements.

3. Response to Comments

EPA agrees with commenters that because the OBD technology is new,

a period of study is warranted. Therefore, although this action makes

OBD testing mandatory for most I/M programs as of January 1, 1998, for

the first two years of the program, until December 31, 1999, vehicles

that fail the OBD test will not automatically fail the I/M test or be

required to obtain repairs. From January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1999,

vehicles that fail the OBD test can still pass the I/M test provided

they undergo and pass the tail-pipe emission test, and, where

applicable, the evaporative system tests. This will give EPA, the

states, and vehicle manufacturers two years to collect data on OBD test

results and the interaction between OBD test failures and exhaust and

evaporative test results. This test period should allow for the

resolution of any vehicle software problems to ensure that vehicle

owners will not be turned away from the test center solely because of

the way in which their vehicle's readiness codes were programmed. In

addition, this two-year period will allow time to correct any other

unforeseen problems that may arise with readiness and diagnostic

trouble codes or any other element of OBD testing. By providing this

test-only period, EPA hopes to identify and solve potential problems so

that consumers will face the least amount of inconvenience possible.

EPA does not believe there will be any lost emission reductions as

a result of this two-year data collection period because most vehicles

will still have to undergo tailpipe emission and, where applicable,

evaporative tests. Furthermore, since OBD testing is only required on

1996 and newer vehicles, these vehicles will still be new and ``clean''

in 1998 and 1999. Because of this, EPA expects that very few of these

vehicles will fail the I/M test.

EPA considered providing more detailed guidance on what the vehicle

operator should be told (beginning in 2000) in the event their vehicle

is rejected from testing because all of its readiness codes are not

cleared. The proposed language of Sec. 85.2223(a)(3) stated that the

operator should be told to return after driving the vehicle ``long

enough'' to allow the readiness codes to clear. Because time is not the

only condition which will affect readiness code status, EPA changed

this language (now in Sec. 85.2222(c)) to provide that the operator be

told to return after driving the vehicle under the conditions necessary

for it to provide an accurate readiness determination.

At this time, EPA does not feel it is appropriate to specify in the

regulation what the vehicle operator should be told and instead

believes it is best left to the states to devise a solution that meets

local program needs. As a result of the general language in this

portion of the regulation, it is imperative that I/M inspectors obtain

education about OBD so they can assess each individual operator's

situation and provide advice on what should be done to ensure that the

vehicle is ready when it returns to the test station. By way of

example, EPA is including the following scenarios. First, evaporative

system leak detection monitors generally require ambient temperatures

above 40 degrees Fahrenheit, and an overnight soak or extended period

of non-operation, prior to exercising the monitor. In a situation where

the evaporative system readiness code is not cleared, an operator

should be told to return after starting their vehicle in warmer ambient

temperature conditions with a near full tank of gasoline. Second,

continued low-speed operation could provide little opportunity for

exercising the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) monitor. In a situation

where the EGR readiness code has not cleared, an operator should be

told to return after driving at higher speeds on the highway so that

EGR would occur and the EGR monitor could be exercised.

B. Verifying Codes at Test Station

1. Summary of Proposal

Under the proposal any vehicle whose malfunction indicator light

(MIL) is commanded to be illuminated and who has certain diagnostic

trouble codes (DTCs) present fails the OBD test.

2. Summary of Comments

One commenter urged EPA to establish a procedure to determine at

the test center if a DTC could be false.

3. Response to Comments

Currently, the technology is not available to determine if a DTC is

false at the test center. EPA believes that the two-year test period

discussed above in section V.A will allow for development and

refinement of OBD systems so that false failures will be less likely.

C. Consumer Acceptance

1. Summary of Proposal

The proposal required that all vehicles that are subject to I/M

testing undergo the OBD test and the exhaust and evaporative test if

applicable. If a vehicle fails any one of the three tests, it fails the

I/M test and must have whatever repairs are necessary (up to the

monetary waiver limit) to pass a retest.

2. Summary of Comments

One commenter noted that the general public might resist having

emission repairs that are necessary to pass the OBD test if the

tailpipe emission test determines that the vehicle is ``clean.''

3. Response to Comments

Section 202(m)(3) of the Clean Air Act requires OBD testing as a

component of all I/M programs. This commenter's concern illustrates the

need for consumer education and awareness of the importance of OBD

systems and OBD testing. The possibility exists that a vehicle will

pass the tailpipe emission test (i.e., testing ``clean'') and still

fail the OBD check. This result is not inconsistent with the proper

operation of the OBD system. A failure of the OBD

[[Page 40942]]

check, coupled with a passing of the tailpipe emissions test, may be an

indication of an emission related problem not apparent during the

tailpipe emission test. For example, an engine misfire condition that

exists only at high speeds may cause a significant emission increase

during high speed operation, not to mention posing a serious threat to

the catalyst. But, if such high speed operation is not part of the

emission test cycle, the vehicle would appear ``clean.'' EPA believes

that the two year test-only period discussed in section V.A will allow

consumers to become familiar with and hopefully understand the

importance of OBD technology. This data gathering period will also

allow EPA and the states time to gather information on what percentages

of vehicles will fail the OBD test but pass the tailpipe emission test.

D. State Requirement for Exhaust and Evaporative Tests

1. Summary of Proposal

In the proposal, EPA stated that all 1996 and later model year

vehicles in I/M programs (basic and enhanced) would have to undergo the

OBD test as well as the applicable exhaust and evaporative test.

2. Summary of Comments

Two commenters suggested that EPA allow states to not require the

exhaust and evaporative tests for vehicles that pass the OBD test. The

commenters felt that these exceptions were warranted because of the

perceived accuracy of OBD systems and because it would make I/M tests

more convenient for consumers by decreasing the overall test time for

those vehicles that pass the OBD test.

3. Response to Comments

At this time, EPA does not believe that there is sufficient data on

the efficacy of OBD systems to warrant the omission of the exhaust and

emission tests for all vehicles that pass the OBD test. However, EPA

does believe that for vehicles two years old and newer, it is not

necessary to perform exhaust and evaporative tests since failure rates

are almost zero for these vehicles. Thus, if a two-year-old or newer

vehicle is subject to a state's I/M program and passes the OBD test,

EPA recommends that the state not require the exhaust and evaporative

test for this vehicle. This will have no impact on emission reduction

credits for the program. EPA agrees with commenters that not conducting

the exhaust and evaporative tests on two year-old and newer vehicles

that pass the OBD test will increase consumer awareness and confidence

in OBD systems, while decreasing test times and wait times overall.

This advice is consistent with EPA's past advice that states not test

vehicles until they are two or three years old (see 57 FR 52950,

52957). EPA believes this is advisable because virtually all of these

vehicles pass the emission and evaporative tests.

EPA is reluctant to recommend not giving evaporative and tailpipe

emission tests to vehicles that pass the OBD test to vehicles beyond

two years old without additional information about OBD effectiveness at

malfunction identification. EPA has consistently stated the hope that

OBD checks will eventually become a substitute for more traditional I/M

tests in the future. The two-year OBD data collection period discussed

in section V.A will give states and EPA time to collect data on the

effectiveness of OBD at identifying some emission problems. Because OBD

is only required in 1996 and later model year vehicles, EPA believes

that this timeframe, while adequate to solve any problems with the OBD

test, will not be sufficient to assess the effectiveness of the OBD

system in identifying the wide range of failures that occur as vehicles

age. As sufficient aging of the fleet occurs, EPA will reevaluate the

adequacy of OBD as a substitute for more traditional I/M test

procedures.

In addition, due to the new flexibility allowed states in the types

of I/M programs they implement, there will be a variety of different

testing programs emerging. EPA needs time to evaluate the different

exhaust and evaporative tests states will use to determine if each type

of test is more or less effective than an OBD test. Thus, in the

future, whether or not passage of the OBD test should influence whether

a state chooses to conduct an exhaust and evaporative test may depend

on the type of exhaust and evaporative tests that are conducted.

For these reasons, EPA is not comfortable recommending that states

omit the traditional exhaust and evaporative test requirements for

vehicles over two-years-old that pass the OBD test.

E. Test Report

1. Summary of Proposal

In the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed that any fault

codes that were retrieved during the OBD test be printed on the I/M

test report.

2. Summary of Comments

Commenters suggested that EPA adopt the SAE J2012 nomenclature as

the standardized test report language that states would be required to

use. Commenters also recommended that fault code information only

appear on the test report if the vehicle fails the exhaust or

evaporative portions of the I/M test. These were the same commenters

that recommended that vehicles should only fail I/M if they fail the

exhaust or evaporative test. Lastly, commenters suggested that a

disclaimer be included on the test report which warned owners of failed

vehicles that multiple or unrelated fault codes could be caused by

temporary emission problems which on subsequent evaluations could prove

to be fine.

3. Response to Comments

EPA agrees with commenters that standardized test report language

would make it easier for the repair industry to diagnose the reason for

the fault. For this reason, today's action adopts the SAE J2012

nomenclature as the standard test report language. Moreover, to

decrease consumer confusion, today's action only requires printing

fault codes on the test report when the vehicle fails the OBD test. For

the test-only period of 1998 and 1999, OBD test information will appear

on the test report whenever the vehicle ``fails'' the OBD test, even

though failure of the OBD test will not cause failure of the I/M.test.

EPA is requiring this because it is important that consumers be aware

that their vehicle may be experiencing a problem despite the tailpipe

emission test results. While EPA did not adopt the exact disclaimer

language suggested by commenters, it is requiring similar language be

printed on the test report in the event of failure of the OBD test (see

40 CFR 85.2223(c)). EPA believes this language provides the type of

information suggested by the commenters. EPA also believes that this

standardized language will help educate consumers on the operation of

OBD and the fact that professional diagnosis is necessary to determine

the source of the failure.

F. Unconfirmed Codes

1. Summary of Proposal

The proposal did not specify which modes should be examined during

the OBD test.

2. Summary of Comments

Commenters suggested specific language which they felt should be

added to the final rule to clarify that fault codes stored in modes #5,

#6, and

[[Page 40943]]

#7 (which store recent test results for various monitors), in

accordance with SAE J1979, are not confirmed and therefore should not

be considered for OBD test purposes.

3. Response to comments

EPA did not intend fault codes stored in pending or unconfirmed

modes (i.e., the codes stored on modes #5, #6, and #7) to be a basis

for an OBD test failure. EPA also did not intend to retrieve

information from modes #2 and #4 which do not store information which

is relevant to I/M testing. To clarify this point, this action

explicitly requires that after retrieving the number of stored codes

from mode #1, only fault codes in mode #3 (which contains the actual

stored trouble codes) be considered for OBD test purposes. Limiting

code retrieval to mode #3 ensures retrieval of those trouble codes

verified as accurate by the OBD system. Because of this change, EPA

believes that the exact language proposed by the commenters is no

longer necessary and did not include it in this action.

G. Bi-Directional Communication

1. Summary of Proposal

The proposal required that OBD test equipment be capable of bi-

directional communication to allow for non-intrusive purge and pressure

tests.

2. Summary of Comments

EPA received comments that the bi-directional communication

requirement be limited to Mode #8 for activation of the canister vent

solenoid. This would allow the I/M lane personnel to close the

evaporative purge solenoid in order to allow pressurization of the

evaporative system via the evaporative service port or other means. The

commenter noted that other bi-direction communication with the OBD

system is for service, and not I/M inspection, purposes.

3. Response to Comments

Because EPA is not sure whether all OBD scan tools will include

built-in safeguards, EPA is limiting bi-directional communication to

Mode #8 for the evaporative system solenoid in order to prevent I/M

inspectors from sending unintentional commands to the vehicle.

Providing for this one area of bi-directional communication will permit

the inspector to close the evaporative system prior to the I/M pressure

test being conducted. By limiting bi-directional communication, today's

action precludes the possibility that the inspector will accidentally

activate an engine control actuator and cause a problem during the

test.

H. Monitoring Engine Speed

1. Summary of Issue

Although monitoring engine speed (RPM) was not directly addressed

by the OBD proposal, commenters felt that this action would be an

appropriate place to require the use of OBD connectors on 1996 and

newer model years to access the RPM signal during I/M testing.

Currently, I/M testing stations use a variety of external measurement

techniques to determine RPM. Commenters noted that whenever possible an

OBD connector should be used for RPM monitoring because the OBD

connector is far more consistent and accurate than external RPM

monitoring devices.

2. EPA Response

EPA agrees with commenters that because the OBD connector is the

most accurate method of measuring RPM it should be used to measure RPM

in all possible instances. Therefore, this action revises the test

procedures in part 51, subpart S, appendix B and part 85, subpart W to

require the use of the standardized OBD connector to access the RPM

signal whenever RPM monitoring is required on 1996 and newer model year

vehicles. While OBD is the preferred method of measuring RPM (for

vehicles with OBD systems), alternative measures can be used in the

event the OBD system fails to provide the RPM information. EPA does not

believe further notice and comment is necessary on this issue because

this revision rose out of the issues addressed in the proposal, it was

supported in the comments, and because EPA is allowing alternative

measures of RPM in the event an OBD reading is unavailable.

After the close of the comment period a stakeholder contacted EPA

to inquire whether the OBD system's failure to provide an RPM signal

would result in the failure of the OBD test. The regulations contained

in today's action do not list RPM failure as a basis for OBD test

failure because RPM information is used for traditional tailpipe

emission purposes and is not a necessary part of the OBD test.

I. Test Order

1. Summary of Proposal

EPA requested comments in the proposal regarding whether an OBD

check could be conducted during the I/M exhaust test.

2. Summary of Comments

Commenters noted that they did not foresee any adverse effects from

conducting the OBD and exhaust tests simultaneously but that only field

experience would tell for certain.

3. Response to Comments

As there are no foreseen adverse consequences of conducting the

exhaust and OBD test simultaneously, this action leaves it up to the

state to determine whether they want to conduct the tests separately or

simultaneously.

J. Key On-Engine Running vs. Key On-Engine Off

1. Summary of Proposal

The proposed action would have allowed the OBD test to be performed

with the vehicle in either the key on-engine running (KOER) or the key

on-engine off (KOEO) position.

2. Summary of Comments

Commenters felt that the OBD test should only be conducted in the

KOER mode to avoid possible problems from the initial OBD self-check on

engine start.

3. Response to Comments

EPA agrees with commenters that in an effort to avoid issues

regarding the OBD self-check on engine start, the OBD test should only

perform when the key is in the KOER position. Therefore, this action

requires that the vehicle be in the KOER position during the OBD test.

K. Warranty Coverage for OBD System

1. Summary of Issue

One commenter noted that the proposal failed to specify how the OBD

systems are to be classified for warranty purposes.

2. EPA Response

The OBD test is a Clean Air Act Section 207(b) warranty short test.

The short test performance warranty covers vehicles only up to the 2

year, 24,000 mile emission performance warranty period described in 40

CFR 85.2103, except that nonconformities that result from the failure

of the OBD computer or from the failure of certain emission components

that are monitored by the OBD system, i.e., the catalyst or the ECU,

are covered during the period of the 8 year, 80,000 mile defect

warranty.

L. Fuel Economy Monitor

1. Summary of Issue

One commenter believed that EPA should require automobile

manufacturers to install a fuel economy monitor in addition to the

malfunction indicator light (MIL) on the dashboard of all vehicles.

This monitor would tell the driver how many miles to the gallon

[[Page 40944]]

the vehicle is currently obtaining. The commenter felt that this fuel

efficiency monitor would provide motorists with an immediate incentive

to repair emission related malfunctions (when the MIL light

illuminated) because they could see how it was affecting their fuel

economy.

2. EPA Response

While EPA appreciated the ingenuity of this proposal, this is not

something that can be addressed in this action. In addition, it is not

clear that EPA has the authority to require such an indicator.

M. OBD Emission Credits

1. Summary of Proposal

In the proposal, EPA explained that states would not receive

additional emission reduction credits relative to the I/M performance

standard for implementing OBD inspections because the OBD test was

already included as an element of the performance standard and a

specifically required component of the program in the original I/M rule

(57 FR 52950, November 5, 1992). Nonetheless, the proposal noted that

while OBD inspections do not generate additional emission reduction

credits, they may actually generate benefits. EPA estimated the

magnitude of these benefits in the original OBD rule (58 FR 9482-9483).

Benefits were not expected in the early years of OBD programs because

fewer vehicles would have OBD systems and such vehicles would be newer

``clean'' vehicles. In the proposal, EPA noted that it would be

assessing the contribution of OBD inspections once OBD testing begins

and will take such assessment into account in later modeling.

2. Summary of Comments

One comment addressed this issue. This commenter felt that EPA

should give additional emission reduction credits for OBD inspections

beginning in 1998. The commenter urged EPA to conduct research on the

effectiveness of OBD at identifying ``dirty'' cars that emission tests

do not identify so that EPA can develop credits in the future.

3. Response to Comments

At this time, EPA does not believe that additional credits are

warranted for OBD inspections for the reasons given in the proposal.

However, EPA does plan to evaluate the data it receives from states to

quantify any additional emission reduction benefits from OBD.

V. Economic Costs and Benefits

Code inspections will not add significantly to the time or cost for

an inspection due to the rapid connection and data transfer

capabilities which have been developed by industry and are required by

EPA's OBD rule. Each I/M lane will need to purchase the equipment

necessary for OBD interrogation. However, this equipment is relatively

inexpensive and these costs may be distributed over thousands of tests.

For enhanced I/M programs, the capital and maintenance costs associated

with conducting OBD tests have been calculated to be $0.05 per test.

The OBD cost for basic centralized I/M programs is only $0.025 per test

due to the higher volume of cars that can be inspected in these lanes.

The total cost of incorporating OBD inspections into enhanced and basic

centralized programs nationwide has been calculated to be about $1.7

million.

Assuming that 1200 tests will be conducted with every scan tool,

the incorporation of OBD inspections into test-and-repair programs has

been calculated to be about $2 million. Thus, the total cost of

incorporating OBD inspections into all I/M programs is $3.7 million.

In addition to improving the identification of high emitting

vehicles in an I/M program, OBD systems will also be of great utility

in the repair of vehicles which fail the inspection, including the

exhaust emission test. OBD will speed identification of the responsible

component, and help avoid trial and error replacement of components.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51,735 (October 4, 1993) the

Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the

Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as

one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant

regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is

therefore not subject to OMB review. Any impacts associated with these

requirements do not exceed the impacts that were dealt with in the I/M

requirements published in the Federal Register on November 5, 1992 (57

FR 52950). This regulation is not expected to be controversial. This

regulation does not raise any of the issues associated with

``significant regulatory actions.'' It does not create an annual effect

on the economy of $100 million or more or otherwise adversely affect

the economy or the environment. The total cost of incorporating OBD

inspections into all I/M programs nationwide has been calculated to be

less than $4 million. It 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. Accordingly, it is appropriate to

consider this a ``non-significant'' or ``minor'' rule action and it

should be exempt from OMB review.

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement

This rule only marginally increases the existing burden through the

addition of requirements to electronically capture and store one

additional data element (existing diagnostic trouble codes) and to

provide EPA with 13 additional summary statistics based on this

information. The existing collection expired on February 28, 1996 (OMB

No. 2060-0252). This additional burden will not be imposed until after

the Information Collection Request has been renewed. When the current

Information Collection Request is renewed, any modifications necessary

to incorporate OBD inspection data collection will be made. These few

additional elements will not add a measurable amount to the existing

estimated burden of 85 hours.

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 action 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 Flexibility. A small entity may include a small government

entity or jurisdiction. A small government jurisdiction is defined as

``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school

districts, or special

[[Page 40945]]

districts, with a population of less than 50,000.'' This certification

is based on the fact that the I/M areas impacted by this rulemaking do

not meet the definition of a small government jurisdiction, that is,

``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school

districts, or special districts, with a population of less than

50,000.''

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 promulgated by this action would

impose any mandate 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 rule is not estimated to impose costs

in excess of $100 million. Therefore, EPA has not prepared a statement

with respect to budgetary impacts.

E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act

(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness

Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register.

This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the

APA as amended.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Motor vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,

Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 85

Confidential business information, Imports, Incorporation by

reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties.

Dated: July 22, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 51 and 85 of chapter

I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

2. Section 51.351 is amended by adding text to 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 newer light-duty vehicles and light-

duty trucks equipped with certified on-board diagnostic systems

pursuant to 40 CFR 86.094-17, and repair of malfunctions or system

deterioration identified by or affecting OBD systems as specified in

Sec. 51.357.

* * * * *

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 newer light-duty vehicles and light-

duty trucks equipped with certified OBD systems pursuant to 40 CFR

86.094-17, and repair of malfunctions or system deterioration

identified by or affecting OBD systems as specified in Sec. 51.357.

* * * * *

4. Section 51.357 is amended by adding text to paragraphs (a)(12)

and (b)(4) to read as follows:

Sec. 51.357 Test procedures and standards.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(12) On-board diagnostic checks. Inspection of the on-board

diagnostic system shall be according to the procedure described in 40

CFR 85.2222, at a minimum.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) On-board diagnostics 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, 2000.

* * * * *

5. Section 51.358 is amended by adding text to paragraph (b)(4) to

read as follows:

Sec. 51.358 Test equipment.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) On-board diagnostic test equipment requirements. The test

equipment used to perform on-board diagnostic inspections shall

function as specified in 40 CFR 85.2231.

* * * * *

6. Section 51.365 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(25); by

removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (a)(23); and by

removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(24) and adding in its

place ``; and'' to read as follows:

Sec. 51.365 Data collection.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(25) Results of the on-board diagnostic check expressed as a pass

or fail along with the diagnostic trouble codes revealed.

* * * * *

7. Section 51.366 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(2)(xi) through

(a)(2)(xxiii); by removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph

(a)(2)(ix) to read as follows:

Sec. 51.366 Data analysis and reporting.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(xi) Passing the on-board diagnostic check and failing the I/M

emission test;

(xii) Failing the on-board diagnostic check and passing the I/M

emission test;

(xiii) Passing both the on-board diagnostic check and I/M emission

test;

(xiv) Failing both the on-board diagnostic check and I/M emission

test;

(xv) Passing the on-board diagnostic check and failing the I/M

evaporative test;

(xvi) Failing the on-board diagnostic check and passing the I/M

evaporative test;

(xvii) Passing both the on-board diagnostic check and I/M

evaporative test;

(xviii) Failing both the on-board diagnostic check and I/M

evaporative test;

(xix) MIL is commanded on and no codes are stored;

[[Page 40946]]

(xx) MIL is not commanded on and codes are stored;

(xxi) MIL is commanded on and codes are stored;

(xxii) MIL is not commanded on and codes are not stored;

(xxiii) Readiness status indicates that the evaluation is not

complete for any module supported by on-board diagnostic systems;

* * * * *

8. Section 51.372 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read

as follows:

Sec. 51. 372 State implementation plan submissions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) States shall revise SIPS as EPA develops further regulations.

Revisions to incorporate on-board diagnostic checks in the I/M program

shall be submitted by August 6, 1996.

* * * * *

9. Section 51.373 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as

follows:

Sec. 51.373 Implementation deadlines.

* * * * *

(g) Areas qualifying for the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) low-

enhanced performance standard shall implement on-board diagnostic

checks by January 1, 1999. In all other areas, on-board diagnostic

checks shall be implemented as part of the I/M program by January 1,

1998.

10. Appendix B to subpart S of part 51 is amended by revising

paragraphs (I)(b)(2)(ii), (II)(b)(2)(ii), (III)(b)(2)(iv),

(IV)(b)(2)(ii), (V)(b)(2)(iv) and (VI)(b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:

APPENDIX B TO SUBPART S--TEST PROCEDURES

(I) * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) For all pre-1996 model year vehicles, a tachometer shall be

attached to the vehicle in accordance with the analyzer manufacturer's

instructions. For 1996 and newer model year vehicles the OBD data link

connector will be used to monitor RPM. In the event that an OBD data

link connector is not available or that an RPM signal is not available

over the data link connector, a tachometer shall be used instead.

* * * * *

(II) * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) For all pre-1996 model year vehicles, a tachometer shall be

attached to the vehicle in accordance with the analyzer manufacturer's

instructions. For 1996 and newer model year vehicles the OBD data link

connector will be used to monitor RPM. In the event that an OBD data

link connector is not available or that an RPM signal is not available

over the data link connector, a tachometer shall be used instead.

* * * * *

(III) * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(iv) For all pre-1996 model year vehicles, a tachometer shall be

attached to the vehicle in accordance with the analyzer manufacturer's

instructions. For 1996 and newer model year vehicles the OBD data link

connector will be used to monitor RPM. In the event that an OBD data

link connector is not available or that an RPM signal is not available

over the data link connector, a tachometer shall be used instead.

* * * * *

(IV) * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) For all pre-1996 model year vehicles, a tachometer shall be

attached to the vehicle in accordance with the analyzer manufacturer's

instructions. For 1996 and newer model year vehicles the OBD data link

connector will be used to monitor RPM. In the event that an OBD data

link connector is not available or that an RPM signal is not available

over the data link connector, a tachometer shall be used instead.

* * * * *

(V) * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(iv) For all pre-1996 model year vehicles, a tachometer shall be

attached to the vehicle in accordance with the analyzer manufacturer's

instructions. For 1996 and newer model year vehicles the OBD data link

connector will be used to monitor RPM. In the event that an OBD data

link connector is not available or that an RPM signal is not available

over the data link connector, a tachometer shall be used instead.

* * * * *

(VI) * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) For all pre-1996 model year vehicles, a tachometer shall be

attached to the vehicle in accordance with the analyzer manufacturer's

instructions. For 1996 and newer model year vehicles the OBD data link

connector will be used to monitor rpm. In the event that an OBD data

link connector is not available or that an rpm signal is not available

over the data link connector, a tachometer shall be used instead.

* * * * *

PART 85--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR

VEHICLE ENGINES

11. The authority citation for part 85 is revised to read as

follows:

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

Subpart W--[Amended]

12. A new Sec. 85.2207 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 85.2207 On-board diagnostics test standards.

(a) Beginning January 1, 2000, failure of the on-board diagnostic

test shall be a basis for failure of the I/M test. Prior to January 1,

2000 failure of the on-board diagnostic test may be a basis for failure

of the I/M test.

(b) A vehicle shall fail the on-board diagnostics test if it is a

1996 or newer vehicle and the vehicle connector is missing, has been

tampered with, or is otherwise inoperable.

(c) A vehicle shall fail the on-board diagnostics test if the

malfunction indicator light is commanded to be illuminated and it is

not visually illuminated according to visual inspection.

(d) A vehicle shall fail the on-board diagnostics test if the

malfunction indicator light is commanded to be illuminated and any of

the following OBD codes, as defined by SAE J2012 are present (where X

refers to any digit). The procedure shall be done in accordance with

SAE J2012 Diagnostic Trouble Code Definitions, (MAR92). This

incorporation of 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.

(1) Any PX1XX Fuel and Air Metering codes.

(2) Any PX2XX Fuel and Air Metering codes.

(3) Any PX3XX Ignition System or Misfire codes.

(4) Any PX4XX Auxiliary Emission Controls codes.

(5) P0500 Vehicle Speed Sensor Malfunction.

(6) P0501 Vehicle Speed Sensor Range/Malfunction.

(7) P0502 Vehicle Speed Sensor Circuit Low Input.

[[Page 40947]]

(8) P0503 Vehicle Speed Sensor Intermittent/Erratic/High.

(9) P0505 Idle Control System Malfunction.

(10) P0506 Idle Control System RPM Lower Than Expected.

(11) P0507 Idle Control System RPM Higher Than Expected.

(12) P0510 Closed Throttle Position Switch Malfunction.

(13) P0550 Power Steering Pressure Sensor Circuit Malfunction.

(14) P0551 Power Steering Pressure Sensor Circuit Malfunction.

(15) P0552 Power Steering Pressure Sensor Circuit Low Input.

(16) P0553 Power Steering Pressure Sensor Circuit Intermittent.

(17) P0554 Power Steering Pressure Sensor Circuit Intermittent.

(18) P0560 System Voltage Malfunction.

(19) P0561 System Voltage Unstable.

(20) P0562 System Voltage Low.

(21) P0563 System Voltage High.

(22) Any PX6XX Computer and Output Circuits codes.

(23) P0703 Brake Switch Input Malfunction.

(24) P0705 Transmission Range Sensor Circuit Malfunction (PRNDL

Input).

(25) P0706 Transmission Range Sensor Circuit Range/Performance.

(26) P0707 Transmission Range Sensor Circuit Low Input.

(27) P0708 Transmission Range Sensor Circuit High Input.

(28) P0709 Transmission Range Sensor Circuit Intermittent.

(29) P0719 Torque Converter/Brake Switch ``B'' Circuit Low.

(30) P0720 Output Speed Sensor Circuit Malfunction.

(31) P0721 Output Speed Sensor Circuit Range/Performance.

(32) P0722 Output Speed Sensor Circuit No Signal.

(33) P0723 Output Speed Sensor Circuit Intermittent.

(34) P0724 Torque Converter/Brake Switch ``B'' Circuit High.

(35) P0725 Engine Speed Input Circuit Malfunction.

(36) P0726 Engine Speed Input Circuit Range/Performance.

(37) P0727 Engine Speed Input Circuit No Signal.

(38) P0728 Engine Speed Input Circuit Intermittent.

(39) P0740 Torque Converter Clutch System Malfunction.

(40) P0741 Torque Converter System Performance or Stuck Off.

(41) P0742 Torque Converter Clutch System Stuck On.

(42) P0743 Torque Converter Clutch System Electrical.

(43) P0744 Torque Converter Clutch Circuit Intermittent.

(e) The list of codes shall be updated with future revisions of

this section, in conjunction with changes to 40 CFR 86.094-17(h)(3).

13. Section 85.2213 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to

read as follows:

Sec. 85.2213 Idle test--EPA 91.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) For all pre-1996 model year vehicles, a tachometer shall be

attached to the vehicle in accordance with the analyzer manufacturer's

instructions. For 1996 and newer model year vehicles the OBD data link

connector will be used to monitor RPM. In the event that an OBD data

link connector is not available or that an RPM signal is not available

over the data link connector, a tachometer shall be used instead.

* * * * *

14. Section 85.2215 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to

read as follows:

Sec. 85.2215 Two speed idle test--EPA 91.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) For all pre-1996 model year vehicles, a tachometer shall be

attached to the vehicle in accordance with the analyzer manufacturer's

instructions. For 1996 and newer model year vehicles the OBD data link

connector will be used to monitor RPM. In the event that an OBD data

link connector is not available or that an RPM signal is not available

over the data link connector, a tachometer shall be used instead.

* * * * *

15. Section 85.2218 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to

read as follows:

Sec. 85.2218 Preconditioned idle test--EPA 91.

* * * * *

(b) * * *.

(2) * * *

(ii) For all pre-1996 model year vehicles, a tachometer shall be

attached to the vehicle in accordance with the analyzer manufacturer's

instructions. For 1996 and newer model year vehicles the OBD data link

connector will be used to monitor RPM. In the event that an OBD data

link connector is not available or that an RPM signal is not available

over the data link connector, a tachometer shall be used instead.

* * * * *

16. Section 85.2220 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii) to

read as follows:

Sec. 85.2220 Preconditioned two speed idle test--EPA 91.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) For all pre-1996 model year vehicles, a tachometer shall be

attached to the vehicle in accordance with the analyzer manufacturer's

instructions. For 1996 and newer model year vehicles the OBD data link

connector will be used to monitor RPM. In the event that an OBD data

link connector is not available or that an RPM signal is not available

over the data link connector, a tachometer shall be used instead.

* * * * *

17. A new Sec. 85.2222 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 85.2222 On-board diagnostic test procedures.

The test sequence for the inspection of on-board diagnostic systems

on 1996 and newer light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks shall

consist of the following steps:

(a) The on-board diagnostic inspection shall be conducted with key-

on/engine-running (KOER).

(b) The inspector shall locate the vehicle connector and plug the

test system into the connector.

(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 of 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. Beginning January 1, 2000, 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.

[[Page 40948]]

(d) The test system shall evaluate the malfunction indicator light

status bit and record status information in the vehicle test record.

(1) If the malfunction indicator status bit indicates that the

malfunction indicator light has been commanded to be illuminated the

test system shall send a Mode $03 request to determine the stored

emission related power train trouble codes. The system shall repeat

this cycle until the number of codes reported equals the number

expected based on the Mode 1 response. If any of the codes listed in

Sec. 85.2207(d) are present they 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 codes listed at Sec. 85.2207(d) are present.

(3) If the malfunction indicator light bit is commanded to be

illuminated, the inspector shall visually inspect the malfunction

indicator light to determine if it is illuminated. If the malfunction

indicator light is commanded to be illuminated but is not, the vehicle

shall fail the on-board diagnostic inspection.

18. A new Sec. 85.2223 is added 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 (as listed in

paragraph (b) of this section), the status of the MIL illumination

command, and the customer alert statement (as stated in paragraph (c)

of this section).

(b) If any of the following codes are retrieved the corresponding

component shall be listed on the test report in the following way:

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

Code Component

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

PX1XX Fuel and Air Metering.

PX2XX Fuel and Air Metering.

PX3XX Ignition System or Misfire.

PX4XX Auxiliary Emission Controls.

P0500 Vehicle Speed Sensor.

P0501 Vehicle Speed Sensor.

P0502 Vehicle Speed Sensor.

P0503 Vehicle Speed Sensor.

P0505 Idle Control System.

P0506 Idle Control System.

P0507 Idle Control System.

P0510 Closed Throttle Position Switch.

P0550 Power Steering Pressure Sensor

Circuit.

P0551 Power Steering Pressure Sensor

Circuit.

P0552 Power Steering Pressure Sensor

Circuit.

P0553 Power Steering Pressure Sensor

Circuit.

P0554 Power Steering Pressure Sensor

Circuit.

P0560 System Voltage.

P0561 System Voltage.

P0562 System Voltage.

P0563 System Voltage.

PX6XX Computer and Output Circuits.

P0703 Brake Switch.

P0705 Transmission Range Sensor Circuit.

P0706 Transmission Range Sensor Circuit.

P0707 Transmission Range Sensor Circuit.

P0708 Transmission Range Sensor Circuit.

P0709 Transmission Range Sensor Circuit.

P0719 Torque Converter/Brake Switch.

P0720 Output Speed Sensor.

P0721 Output Speed Sensor.

P0722 Output Speed Sensor.

P0723 Output Speed Sensor.

P0724 Torque Converter/Brake Switch.

P0725 Engine Speed Input Circuit.

P0726 Engine Speed Input Circuit.

P0727 Engine Speed Input Circuit.

P0728 Engine Speed Input Circuit.

P0740 Torque Converter Clutch System.

P0741 Torque Converter System.

P0742 Torque Converter Clutch System.

P0743 Torque Converter Clutch System.

P0744 Torque Converter Clutch System.

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

(c) In addition to any codes which were retrieved, the test report

shall include the following language:

Your vehicle's computerized self-diagnostic system (OBD)

registered the fault(s) listed below. This fault(s) is probably an

indication of a malfunction of an emission component. However,

multiple and/or seemingly unrelated faults may be an indication of

an emission-related problem that occurred previously but upon

further evaluation by the OBD system was determined to be only

temporary. Therefore, proper diagnosis by a qualified technician is

required to positively identify the source of any emission-related

problem.

19. A new Sec. 85.2231 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 85.2231 On-board diagnostic test equipment requirements.

(a) The test system interface to the vehicle shall include a plug

that conforms to SAE J1962 ``Diagnostic Connector.'' The procedure

shall be done in accordance with SAE J1962 ``Diagnostic Connector''

(JUN92). This incorporation of 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 J1962 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.

(b) The test system shall be capable of communicating via the J1962

connector with a vehicle certified as complying with the on-board

diagnostic requirements of 40 CFR 86.094-17.

(c) The test system shall be capable of checking for the monitors

supported by the on-board diagnostic system and the evaluation status

of supported monitors (test complete/test not complete) in Mode $01 PID

$01, as well as be able to request the diagnostic trouble codes, as

specified in SAE J1979. In addition, the system shall have the

capability to include bi-directional communication for control of the

evaporative canister vent solenoid. SAE J1979 is incorporated by

reference and approved by the Director of the Federal Register in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of all the

SAE documents cited above 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.

(d) The test system shall automatically make a pass, fail, or

reject decision, as specified in the test procedure in Sec. 85.2222.

[FR Doc. 96-19409 Filed 8-5-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P