IM Program RequirementOn-Board Diagnostic Checks; Amendment to the Final Rule

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 85

[AMS-FRL-6007-3]

RIN 2060-AE19

IM Program Requirement--On-Board Diagnostic Checks; Amendment to

the Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today's action revises the federal vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) rules relating to the implementation deadline by

which states are required to begin On-Board Diagnostic Checks (OBD) as

a routine part of basic and enhanced I/M programs. This rule change

delays to January 1, 2001, the required implementation date for OBD in

basic and enhanced I/M program areas in the Ozone Transport Region

(OTR) and in all other areas. During this time extension the Agency

will generate, collect and analyze the data necessary to accord OBD

checks the appropriate level of emission reduction credits.

Additionally, certain clarifying amendments are being made to this rule

to allow for updates to the Code of Federal Regulations which are

cross-referenced in the OBD rule.

DATES: This rule change is effective May 4, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in the

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

Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall SW, Washington, DC 20460. The docket

may be inspected between 8:30 a.m. and 12 noon and between 1:30 p.m.

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

copying docket material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Buddy Polovick, Office of Mobile

Sources, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth

Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105. Telephone (734) 741-7928.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The preamble, regulatory language and a

regulatory announcement are available electronically from the EPA

internet Web site. This service is free of charge, except for any cost

one may already incur for internet connectivity. An electronic version

is made available on the day of publication on the primary Web site

listed below. The EPA Office of Mobile Sources also publishes these

notices on the secondary Web site listed below.

http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/

(either select desired date or use Search feature)

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

(look in What's New or under the specific rulemaking topic)

Please note that due to differences between the software used to

develop the document and the software into which the document may be

downloaded, minor changes in format, pagination, etc. may occur. The

version published in the Federal Register is the official version of

this document.

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by the minor amendment to the I/M

rule are those which adopt, approve, fund or implement I/M programs.

Regulated categories and entities include:

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

Examples of regulated

Category entities

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

Local government.......................... Local air quality agencies.

State government.......................... State air quality agencies

responsible for I/M

programs.

Federal government........................ DOT.

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

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 of which EPA is now

aware that could potentially be regulated by this I/M amendment. Other

types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To

determine whether your organization is regulated by this action, you

should carefully examine the applicability criteria of 40 CFR 51.350 of

the I/M rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

I. Summary of Rule

Under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act), 42 U.S.C.

7401 et seq., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published

in the Federal Register on November 5, 1992, (40 CFR part 51, subpart

S) rules relating to motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)

programs (hereafter referred to as the I/M rule; see 57 FR 52950).

Subsequent to that rule, the EPA published in the Federal Register on

August 6, 1996, (40 CFR parts 51 and 85) rules relating to the

implementation of On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) checks as a routine part of

I/M programs (hereafter referred to as the I/M OBD rule; see 61 FR

40940). EPA published a proposed rulemaking proposing changes to those

rules in the Federal Register on December 22, 1997 (62 FR 66841). For a

full description of all relevant background information please see that

notice. EPA today takes final action to amend those OBD rules to delay

to January 1, 2001, the deadline by which OBD checks must be

implemented in I/M programs.

Today, EPA amends 40 CFR 51.373 to delay the implementation

deadline for OBD checks in all I/M areas, including OTR low enhanced

areas. Additionally, certain clarifying amendments have been made to

allow for updates to Part 86 of the Code of Federal Regulations which

are cross-referenced in the OBD rule. The requirement shall remain that

states revise their I/M SIPs by August 6, 1998, to include the

requirement to implement OBD checks by the January 1, 2001 deadline.

For further information on this issue please see the Public

Participation section of this rule.

Additionally, EPA amends here today two sections of the I/M OBD

rule which were not proposed to be amended in the notice of proposed

rulemaking for this rule. Those sections, 40 CFR 51.357(b)(4) and

85.2222(c), were inadvertently not identified as sections which also

had dates that needed to be realigned with the new testing deadline of

January 2001. Those sections indicated that by January 1, 2000, an

incomplete readiness evaluation of the automobile's OBD system or a

failure of the OBD diagnostic check were required to result in failure

of the I/M test. Both of these sections should be amended to require

failure under these circumstances by January 1, 2001, to be consistent

with the change of the start of OBD testing. EPA regards this late

addition to the rules to be amended as noncontroversial because such a

timeline was implied by moving the start dates for those tests to

January 1, 2001. Obviously vehicles could not be

[[Page 24430]]

required to fail before they are required to be tested.

EPA believes that the overall issue of revising dates to conform

with delayed OBD testing was sufficiently raised in the rulemaking

process and that further comment would be unnecessary. For these

reasons, EPA invokes the ``good cause'' clause of the Administrative

Procedure Act 553(b)(B) to make these changes today in this final

notice instead of unnecessarily reproposing another rulemaking for

these changes, which EPA believes would be contrary to the public

interest in achieving prompt, consistent I/M OBD rules.

It is important to note that EPA has not changed the sections that

allow for states to implement OBD inspections before the required

deadline if desired, and to allow failure of OBD to result in failure

of the I/M test, thereby requiring repair in such cases. Both efforts

shall remain optional to the states. However, states which choose to

conduct OBD checks, on vehicles so equipped, before the new deadline,

may earn minimal emission reduction credits for doing so only if they

perform the OBD checks in conjunction with the exhaust and (where

applicable) evaporative tests. States may not yet earn emissions

reductions credits for only OBD checks, in the absence of exhaust and

evaporative testing, which are comparable to exhaust and evaporative

test credits. Only after the Agency has accorded OBD a defined level of

emissions reduction credit can states potentially drop the exhaust and

evaporative tests and still earn comparable emission reduction credits

for performing only OBD checks on those vehicles. Should EPA and states

complete testing and review of OBD systems sooner than expected, the

Agency may be able to make credit available for OBD testing without

exhaust and evaporative testing, to states which choose to implement I/

M OBD checks before January, 2001. Any questions about credit

assignments for OBD checks should be directed to the contact person for

this rule.

These amendments are consistent with the relevant requirements of

the Act. These changes will not result in any change in health and

environmental benefits. The only Act-required deadline with regard to

OBD testing is that described above, such that states must revise their

SIPs by August 6, 1998. [The Act requires such revisions by two years

from promulgation of the OBD rules, or August 6, 1996 in this case.]

That requirement has been retained in this amendment. The Act does not

require a specific deadline for implementation of OBD testing. EPA

believes it is reasonable to extend the previously established deadline

pending further study of the effectiveness of OBD testing for the

reasons stated above.

II. Public Participation

The following sections describe the submitted comments and EPA's

response thereto.

A. Request to Extend Comment Period

1. Summary of Comments

One commenter requested an extension of the comment period from the

15 days provided in the NPRM to the full and customary 30 day period.

They noted that the timing of the 15 day period coincided with the

holidays and did not provide ample time to consider the NPRM and submit

full comment.

2. Response to Comments

EPA noted in the NPRM for this rule that the shortened comment

period was necessary because of the tight timeline for promulgating

these amendments. Considerable advance notice of the Agency's

intentions had been provided to all stakeholders months in advance of

the NPRM. Because the timing of the rule may have been inconvenient and

because the Agency was still reviewing comments, additional time was

provided to that commenter to expand their comments. EPA opted to not

pursue publishing a formal extension of the comment period for an

additional 15 days because that time would likely have lapsed before

such a notice would appear in the Federal Register. No other commenter

expressed concern about needing additional time to amplify their

comments. As it turned out, the commenter ultimately notified the

Agency that after further reviewing the proposal and its initial

comments it did not need to submit additional comments.

B. The Requirement to Revise I/M SIP Submittals by August 6, 1998

1. Summary of Comments

One commenter noted that while they support EPA's proposal to delay

implementation of OBD to January 1, 2001, they recommend that EPA

reconsider the requirement that states revise their I/M SIP submittals

by August 6, 1998. They believe the requirement will force a commitment

of resources to develop OBD programs well before they are required and

that requirements may change in the interim. Furthermore, the commenter

asserted that more pressing SIP submittals must be made in the near

term.

2. Response to Comments

EPA recognizes that the new deadline delays a program requirement

for a period of time during which I/M program requirements may change.

However OBD requirements are projected to change little if any. Test

procedures, standards and equipment needs are outlined in the original

I/M OBD rule, and implementation guidelines will be available in 1998.

EPA does not intend to require states to fully develop their OBD

program almost three years before implementation as that is not

necessary. However, the Clean Air Act, Section 202 (m)(3), does require

that states amend their I/M SIP submittals within two years of

promulgation of OBD regulations, to include the OBD checks. As EPA

promulgated its original I/M OBD rule on August 6, 1996, by statute

states must amend their SIPs by August 6, 1998 to require OBD checks in

their I/M programs. To meet this requirement EPA will accept at a

minimum, a brief SIP amendment which commits to implementing EPA

approved OBD checks, as outlined in the I/M OBD rule, by January 1,

2001. A similar amendment to the applicable state I/M requirements

shall be made which indicates that I/M OBD checks consistent with EPA

rules are required to be conducted by January 1, 2001. No detailed OBD

program submittal is required by August 6, 1998. Any questions about

such requirements should be directed to the contact person for this

rule.

C. Tachometer Connectors Without Mandatory OBD Checks

1. Summary of Comments

One of OBD's numerous functions is that it can be used to perform

engine speed (RPM) measurements on vehicles so equipped. Because the

RPM measurement is necessary for I/M idle tests, it is important for

all new vehicles to be equipped with either tachometer connectors or

OBD. One commenter noted that current regulations require MY '96 and

newer vehicles, which are tested with idle tests, to use the OBD

connector to perform the tachometer measurement. They note that because

OBD was to be required by 1998, manufacturers may have stopped

equipping cars with the tachometer loops used solely for measuring RPM.

They are now concerned that without the OBD requirement that EPA may

make manufacturers responsible to provide alternate means to perform

the RPM measurement. They are concerned that states be permitted to use

alternate means to make tachometer

[[Page 24431]]

measurements on OBD equipped vehicles during the period of delay. They

seek to confirm EPA's policies with regard to RPM measurement for OBD

equipped vehicles.

2. Response to Comments

EPA has no intention of making manufacturers responsible for

resuming installation of tachometer connectors. OBD represents a new

era in vehicle technology and nothing would be gained by going back to

previous requirements for tachometer connectors on new vehicles. OBD

systems offer substantial benefits regardless of I/M requirements, and

for these reasons they shall continue to be required on newly

manufactured vehicles.

While decentralized stations have the option of using OBD scanners

or alternative tach measurement equipment before required OBD testing

begins, most should already have OBD scan equipment simply because it

is far more useful to them in other capacities, namely as a powerful

diagnostic tool. Any test and repair facility which works on 1996 and

newer cars will be highly motivated to make the investment in OBD scan

tools solely to support the repair side of their shop. EPA maintains

that this delay in OBD implementation will cause no additional expense

for those stations other than what they would already have incurred as

overhead for repairing those newer vehicles. Centralized I/M programs

which opt to implement OBD checks before the new deadline have the

option to use alternative RPM measurement equipment in that interim as

well, however with their high lane throughput they will easily be able

to afford OBD scanning equipment, as the per vehicle cost will be

nominal.

The tachometer measurement on OBD equipped vehicles which do not

have tach connectors can be made without querying the OBD system.

Equipment is already available in the field to monitor the engine RPM.

Radio frequency units and other technologies are used successfully and

could easily take the place of OBD scanners for stations which choose

not to invest in those units until required testing begins.

D. Ability of Aftermarket Business to Participate in Repair of OBD

Failed Vehicles

1. Summary of Comments

One commenter noted their support for the delayed implementation of

OBD checks but is concerned that once testing begins in 2001, failure

of the OBD check shall mean automatic failure of the I/M test, thereby

requiring repair. They oppose such mandatory OBD testing and repair for

failed vehicles unless all independent aftermarket businesses can

participate in the service and repair of such vehicles. They do not

believe that aftermarket parts manufacturers currently have the

information they need to manufacture the parts for these repairs. They

feel EPA should use the extra time during the delay to ensure that such

information is available.

2. Response to Comments

This comment is not directly related to the proposal to delay

implementation of OBD checks because manufacturer information

requirements are not affected. The commenter's information availability

concerns have been addressed previously in another EPA rulemaking, the

Service Information Rules, 60 FR 40474, published August 9, 1995. Those

rules require automobile manufacturers to provide aftermarket service

providers with information needed to make use of the OBD system and to

make emission related repairs. Any further questions about those

requirements should be directed to Holly Pugliese (734) 214-4288.

E. OBD Readiness Code Failures and Voluntary I/M Failure for OBD Checks

1. Summary of Comments

One commenter expressed support for EPA's proposal to delay

implementation of OBD checks for many of the reasons cited above,

namely that because OBD is a new technology a period of study is

warranted so that program implementation and success is not compromised

by startup problems. However the commenter did note several concerns

with the I/M OBD rule and its requirements. One concern was that EPA

left unchanged sections of the rule which allow for states to begin OBD

checks before the proposed new deadline and to allow failure of the OBD

check to trigger failure of the I/M test and require repair in such

cases. They note that linking the I/M pass/fail decision to the OBD

check before EPA's field evaluation is completed would be premature if

there are technology and startup problems and could lead to consumer

dissatisfaction and could adversely affect I/M programs. The commenter

noted their concern with another section of the rule left unchanged

which requires vehicles to be failed for the OBD check if the system's

``readiness evaluation'' is not completed at the time of inspection.

They believe that rather than failing a vehicle for a readiness

problem, the rule should require that if readiness codes are not set

the default pass/fail determination should be made by an alternative

tailpipe and/or evaporative test. Lastly the commenter noted that they

believe EPA will have to reconsider the January 1, 2001 deadline if the

field studies warrant it and they request that EPA commit to revisit

the rules before then, if that is the case.

2. Response to Comments

EPA agrees there are both risks and benefits for states which begin

OBD checks before the proposed new deadline of January 1, 2001 and

before EPA has completed its field evaluation. States would benefit

from increased consumer knowledge and acceptance of OBD while at the

same time having the opportunity to work out startup problems such as

complications with equipment and network compatibility. There may be

some risk associated with failing vehicles for the I/M test if

indicated only by the OBD check. [For instance, technical problems with

certain OBD systems or other implementation problems may lead to some

false failures. EPA believes that such risks are minimal considering

the advanced nature of OBD technology, but these are normal for infant

technology.] Furthermore, EPA is developing implementation guidelines

for OBD checks and intends to make those guidelines final by late 1998.

EPA believes that states generally are sensitive to the integral

nature of each I/M program element and are equally concerned with

ensuring success of their programs in order to achieve the maximum air

quality benefits. It would therefore not be expected that states would

choose to implement OBD prematurely if doing so would place the broader

I/M program at risk. EPA has and will continue to work with states

individually to provide the guidance and information needed to optimize

OBD's potential. It is important to note that under Section 116 of the

Act states may make their I/M programs as stringent as they choose as

long as they meet the minimum requirements set by EPA. Therefore they

may opt to fail vehicles from their I/M test based on OBD failure

alone, before the requirement to do so begins. EPA is confident that

states can make the assessment whether or not it is beneficial for them

to do so on an individual basis and we will endeavor to share useful

information with those interested states.

With regard to the commenter's concerns about EPA rules requiring

OBD failure for incomplete readiness status, EPA stands by its original

requirement. EPA did not propose to

[[Page 24432]]

amend this requirement and does not believe it would be prudent to do

so. The ``readiness evaluation'' means that the OBD system queries each

of the individual emissions control monitor components during certain

operating modes or conditions to ensure that the monitors are

functioning properly. Once these determinations are made the readiness

code is set to confirm that relevant monitors have successfully been

queried. This feature is designed as such so that when a technician

scans the OBD system and sees that all the readiness codes are set,

they can be confident of the validity of any diagnostic trouble codes

(DTCs) that may or may not be set. While a non functioning readiness

monitor does not necessarily mean that a vehicle is operating dirty, it

provides no assurance that the OBD system has fully evaluated the

emissions performance of the vehicle and that the absence of DTCs

indicates a properly functioning system. Without operational readiness

criteria, a vehicle or component may be failing but a monitor will not

have had the opportunity to evaluate operation and set DTCs as

appropriate. Additionally, in such circumstances, the technician will

not have an indicator of an emission component problem, unless he or

she performs a tailpipe or evaporative emission test.

EPA does not believe states should be put in a position where they

should have to rely on other I/M tailpipe or evaporative tests to make

a pass fail decision for OBD equipped vehicles. Nor does EPA believe

that the public should bear the burden of any readiness deficiencies.

OBD has the potential to vastly streamline I/M testing and this cannot

be achieved unless readiness criteria are included in the list of

potential failure triggers. By January, 2001 manufacturers will have

built at least 5 model years of OBD equipped vehicles and EPA believes

that is ample time to correct any initial design or technical problems

with the systems. To create special test requirements for readiness

deficient vehicles runs the risk of fundamentally weakening I/M

programs, particularly OBD's future. It would promote the idea

throughout the I/M community and amongst vehicle owners that OBD

technology is not as good as it was intended to be. It could erode the

integrity of OBD sufficiently to draw public criticism. A vehicle owner

may not understand why their OBD equipped vehicle must be subjected to

a more time consuming and intrusive tailpipe or evaporative check when

others are not. Furthermore, keeping the readiness failure criteria

provides vehicle owners one more measure of a vehicle's performance,

ensuring that manufacturers design and build the cleanest vehicles

possible. For all the reasons noted above, EPA believes it is

absolutely essential that readiness criteria remain as one of the

triggers for failure of the OBD test once testing becomes mandatory in

2001. EPA declines to accept the commenter's recommendation to do

otherwise. However, just as states have the flexibility to voluntarily

implement OBD before January 2001, they are not bound to fail vehicles

for OBD readiness deficiencies alone during these interim years. They

may choose to confirm readiness code failures with alternate tailpipe

and evaporative tests.

It is important to note that technicians in I/M lanes may encounter

another type of readiness deficiency, not a problem of a design or

technical nature but rather a situation where the vehicle which is

presented for testing simply has not had the chance to operate each of

its monitors. Generally each monitor can only be triggered while the

vehicle is operating under certain conditions or operating modes, e.g.,

certain highway speeds, coolant temperatures, start/stop sequences,

etc. If a vehicle owner drives only short distances or low speeds (for

instance, because they may live near work or the test center), certain

monitors may not get the opportunity to operate before the vehicle is

presented for testing. As a result, the technician cannot complete the

OBD check and will have to direct the vehicle owner to return after

operating the vehicle in such a manner that all monitors have been

operated. Evidence thus far indicates that such scenarios are rare. In

most cases this means owners may have to operate on the highway for a

certain period of time. This extra step is akin to what often occurs in

traditional I/M testing (which requires the vehicle to be fully warmed

before testing), whereby owners who present ``cold'' vehicles may be

turned away to drive their vehicles until fully warmed. This particular

type of readiness deficiency scenario is not expected to have a

qualitative impact on the success of OBD but will be addressed in the

implementation guidance.

Finally, the commenter's request that EPA commit to reconsider the

deadline before the arrival of the January 1, 2001 deadline, should EPA

determine the field studies warrant it, can be answered simply. EPA has

no intention of implementing any program before it is ready, especially

if such premature implementations would place the current benefits of

an I/M program at risk. That is precisely one of the reasons for the

delay promulgated here today. While it is too early to state

definitively that no problems with OBD warranting further delay will be

found, EPA is confident that the three year delay will be adequate to

determine the state of the technology.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Regulatory Flexibility

EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also

determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises and small government

jurisdictions. A small government jurisdiction is defined as

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

districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000.

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 Impact Analysis. 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. The I/M rule

applies only to urbanized areas with populations in excess of 100,000

or 200,000 depending upon location.

B. 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

requirements in 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, this rule is not estimated

to impose costs in excess of $100 million. Therefore, EPA is not

required to and has not prepared a statement with respect to budgetary

impacts. As noted above, this rule offers

[[Page 24433]]

opportunities to states to delay implementation of certain requirements

and thus enables them to lower economic burdens from those resulting

from the currently existing I/M rule.

C. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit 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 United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a

``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

D. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the

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

and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (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 budget impact of entitlement, 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 final action is not a

``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

E. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

This regulatory action does not contain any information collection

requirements which require the approval of the Office of Management and

Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

IV. Effective Date

This rule will take effect May 4, 1998. EPA finds good cause to

have the rule take effect immediately because it relieves a

restriction, which for the reasons described above EPA believes is

inappropriate at this time, which took effect January 1, 1998. It would

not be in the public interest to keep that restriction in effect once

EPA has acted to relieve it.

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, Sulphur oxides,

Transportation, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 85

Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle

pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research,

Warranties.

Dated: April 27, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

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

I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as

follows:

PART 51--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 51 is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7412, 7413, 7414, 7470-7479,

7501-7508, 7601, and 7602.

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.

* * * * *

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 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.

* * * * *

4. Section 51.357 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read

as follows:

Sec. 51.357 Test procedures and standards.

* * * * *

(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, 2001.

* * * * *

5. 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, 2001.

PART 85--[AMENDED]

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

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542,

7601(a).

Sec. 85.2207 [Amended]

7. Section 85.2207 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs

(a) and (e).

8. Section 85.2222 is amended by revising paragraph (c) 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

[[Page 24434]]

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, 2001, 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.

* * * * *

9. Section 85.2231 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

Sec. 85.2231 On-board diagnostic test equipment requirements.

* * * * *

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

standard data link connector of vehicles with certified OBD systems.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98-11751 Filed 5-1-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P