[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 160 (Friday, August 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43092-43099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20539]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 51 and 85
[FRL-5270-5]
Inspection/Maintenance Program Requirement--On-Board Diagnostic
Checks
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes revisions to the motor vehicle
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program Requirements. The proposed
revisions include additions and modifications regarding requirements
that I/M inspectors check the on-board diagnostic system as part of the
overall inspection. This rule proposes 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.
DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received no later than
September 18, 1995.
The Agency will hold a public hearing on this proposed amendment if
one is requested on or before September 5, 1995.
If a public hearing is held, comments must be received within 30
days after the hearing.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in duplicate
if possible) to Public Docket No. A-94-21. It is requested that a
duplicate copy be submitted to Eugene J. Tierney at the address in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. The docket is located at
the Air Docket, Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall, 401 M. Street S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460. The docket may be inspected between 8:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying
docket material.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene J. Tierney, Office of Mobile
Sources, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth
Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105. Telephone (313) 668-4456.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Contents
II. Summary of Proposal
III. Authority
IV. Background of Proposed Rule
V. Discussion of Major Issues
A. Components of the OBD Inspection
1. Test Procedure
2. Anti-Tampering Provisions
B. Standards for Failure of the OBD Inspection
C. OBD Component of the Performance Standard
D. Administrative Program Requirements
1. Data Collection and Analysis
E. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions
F. Implementation Deadlines
VI. Economic Costs and Benefits
VII. Public Participation
A. Comments and the Public Docket
B. Public Hearing
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation
B. Reporting and Record Keeping Requirement
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
II. Summary of Proposal
Motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs are an
integral part of the effort to reduce mobile source air pollution.
Despite being subject to the most rigorous vehicle pollution control
program in the world, vehicles in the United States still create a
substantial amount of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides,
and other air pollutants. One reason for this is the fact that the
number of vehicle miles traveled on U.S. roads has doubled in the last
two decades to 2 trillion miles per year, partially offsetting the
technological progress in vehicle emission control made during that
time. Projections of continued growth in vehicle travel necessitate
continued emission-reduction efforts so that air quality goals may be
achieved.
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) is
pursuing a three-point strategy for reducing emissions from
transportation sources. The first two points involve the development
and commercialization of cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels. The third
point focuses on in-use control to ensure that cars in customer use are
properly maintained. I/M programs are intended to address this third
point. 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.
EPA is proposing today to establish requirements for the inspection
of on-board diagnostic systems as part of I/M programs. The purpose of
this notice is to propose amendments to 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. Specifically, the reserved sections to be
modified include Sec. 51.351(c), Sec. 51.352(c), Sec. 51.357(a)(12),
Sec. 51.357(b)(4), and Sec. 51.358(b)(4) of Part 51. This notice also
proposes additions to sections of Subpart S pertaining to data
collection and analysis as well as implementation deadlines.
Specifically, these sections include Sec. 51.365, Sec. 51.366, and
Sec. 51.373. Finally, this notice proposes additions 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. These Subpart W changes will provide vehicles
subject to the OBD test with emission control performance warranty
coverage for OBD test failures.
III. Authority
Authority for the actions proposed in this notice is granted to EPA
by sections 182(a)(2)(B)(ii), 182(c)(3), 202(m)(3),
[[Page 43093]]
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. Background of Proposed Rule
During the last two decades, there have been considerable emission
control development efforts on the part of both vehicle manufacturers
and the federal government. As a result, passenger cars and light-duty
trucks produced in recent years emit significantly lower emissions than
their predecessors, provided that they are properly operating.
A large body of evidence, however, demonstrates that current
generation vehicles are not all operating properly during actual use.
Moreover, they are often used under different temperature and driving
conditions than are encountered in emission certification tests, and
may emit significantly greater emissions when operating at those
temperatures and conditions. As manufacturers have achieved significant
reductions in the emissions of properly functioning, new vehicles, the
lack of equivalent control over malfunctions and during non-standard
conditions has become increasingly evident. Emission-related
malfunctions do not always cause an outward indication of a problem
(e.g., poor driveability or decreased fuel economy) and thus are
sometimes difficult to detect and repair.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, signed into law on November
15, 1990, reflect a recognition of the problems encountered in
identifying malfunctioning vehicles and contain several provisions
aimed at reducing them. One of these is the requirement for
incorporation and inspection of on-board diagnostic systems (OBD) in
new vehicles. Section 207 of these amendments added paragraph (m) to
section 202 of the Act, directing the EPA to promulgate regulations
requiring the installation and inspection of OBD systems.
Section 202(m)(1) of the Act requires OBD systems to monitor
emission-related components for malfunctions or deterioration which
render vehicles incapable of complying with the emission standards
established for such vehicles. On February 19, 1993, EPA promulgated
requirements for OBD systems (hereafter, OBD rules) on 1994 and later
model year light duty vehicles and light duty trucks (58 FR 9468,
February 19, 1993). These regulations (40 CFR 86.094-17) require all
vehicle manufacturers to install equipment and establish operating
parameters for the purpose of detecting malfunctions or deterioration
in performance that would be expected to cause a vehicle to fail
federal emission standards. Specifically, the on-board diagnostic
system must be capable of identifying catalyst deterioration, engine
misfire, oxygen sensor deterioration, and any other deterioration or
malfunction within the powertrain which could cause emission increases
greater than or exceeding the threshold levels established in
Sec. 86.094-17.
A malfunction indicator light (MIL) located in the dashboard of the
vehicle is required to be illuminated when the OBD system detects
malfunctions. The purpose of the MIL is to inform the vehicle operator
of the need for service when the vehicle is operating under potentially
high emitting conditions. Once illuminated to indicate a malfunction,
the MIL must remain illuminated during all periods of engine operation
until the trouble codes stored in the on-board computer are cleared by
a service technician or after repeated reevaluation by the OBD system
fails to detect a reoccurrence of the problem. The regulations allow
the OBD system to extinguish the MIL after three subsequent driving
cycles of similar operation in which a system fault does not reoccur.
Similar operating conditions are defined as being within ten (10)
percent of the load condition and 375 rpm with the same engine warm-up
status which existed when the malfunction was first determined (40 CFR
86.094-17).
Codes indicating the likely problem will be stored in the vehicle's
on-board computer for ready access by technicians, enabling proper
diagnosis and repair. Section 202(m)(4) of the Act requires that OBD
system information be unrestricted and accessible to anyone via
standardized connectors without requiring access codes or any device
only available from the manufacturer. Further, the OBD system
information must be usable without need for any unique decoding
information or device. In accordance with this mandate, the OBD rules
require codes to be standardized to follow the diagnostic trouble code
definitions established in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J2012,
published in March 1992. EPA allows the computer-stored fault codes to
be cleared after forty (40) engine warm-up cycles if the same fault is
not reregistered. Anyone desiring more detailed information on the OBD
system should refer to the OBD rules and the preamble promulgated on
February 19, 1993, (58 FR 9468).
The Act also revised and strengthened EPA's authority to prescribe
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs for ozone
nonattainment areas. Section 182 of the Act requires EPA to review,
revise, and republish I/M program requirements, taking into
consideration investigations and audits of I/M programs, and the I/M
requirements established in the Act.
One of these program requirements is inspection of vehicle OBD
systems. The Act requires that OBD inspections be incorporated into all
basic and enhanced I/M programs once vehicles with mandated OBD systems
become part of the fleet. Section 182(c)(3)(vii) requires that I/M
programs include ``inspection of emission control diagnostic systems
and the maintenance or repair of malfunctions or systems deterioration
identified by or affecting such diagnostic systems.'' Sections
182(a)(2) and 202(m)(3) require states to amend I/M program
implementation plans to incorporate the inspection of on-board
diagnostic systems within two years after promulgation of regulations
requiring such inspection.
EPA's initial rule implementing section 182's I/M requirements (the
I/M rule) was promulgated on November 5, 1992. It establishes
performance standards and other requirements for basic and enhanced
vehicle I/M programs. Several sections of the I/M rule were reserved
for OBD requirements, since the OBD rules had not yet been promulgated.
This proposed rule addresses those sections of the I/M rule reserved
for OBD requirements.
OBD systems will allow an inspector to scan for stored malfunction
codes at the time of the periodic I/M test by simply attaching a
computerized scan tool to the standardized plug provided on all OBD
equipped vehicles. The presence of one or more emissions-related codes
in a vehicle's OBD system will indicate current or recent existence of
a malfunction with the potential to cause high emissions. Furthermore,
current emissions problems are also indicated if the MIL is commanded
to be illuminated by the OBD system. Thus, EPA proposes that if the MIL
is commanded to be illuminated and an emissions-related code is
present, the vehicle shall fail the OBD inspection and be required to
obtain the repairs indicated by the malfunction code.
On-board diagnostic system inspections are intended to improve the
accuracy of I/M programs, thus enhancing air quality benefits. The
short emission tests used in I/M programs allow some vehicles that need
repair to nevertheless ``pass'' the test. In addition, visual
inspections of emission control devices can only determine presence and
possibly proper connection but do not necessarily establish that the
devices are functioning properly.
[[Page 43094]]
Interrogation of the OBD system provides another means of identifying
vehicles in need of repair. It also enables more accurate and efficient
repairs by identifying vehicle components responsible for emission
increases.
A vehicle's failure to pass an approved I/M test may provide the
basis for a warranty claim under the Act. Section 207(b) of the Act
requires vehicle manufacturers to bear the cost of repairing a failing
vehicle such that it passes the I/M test, if: (1) Such vehicle is
maintained and operated in accordance with manufacturer instructions;
(2) the vehicle fails the test during the appropriate warranty period;
and (3) if such nonconformity results in the owner having to bear any
penalty or other sanction under state or Federal law. Section 207(b)
establishes a mechanism to provide emission control performance
warranty coverage for motor vehicles subject to such tests under the
circumstance enumerated in the previous sentence (40 CFR Part 85,
Subpart V). Section 207(b) requires the Administrator to establish, by
regulation, I/M short test procedures to be used for determining
whether in-use vehicles comply with Federal emission standards if the
Administrator determines that the following three conditions have been
met: (1) The short test methods and procedures are ``available'' (i.e.,
that the necessary equipment may be readily obtained and that the
procedure is reasonably expected to serve its function); (2) the
procedures are consistent with good engineering practices; and (3) the
results are reasonably capable of being correlated with tests conducted
under Sec. 206(a)(1), the tests used to certify new vehicles.
The OBD inspection meets these three conditions. Therefore, the Act
requires promulgation of regulations to implement the performance
warranty for vehicles that fail the OBD inspection. EPA is therefore
proposing to incorporate the OBD test procedures, equipment, and
standards for failure into its emission warranty short test
regulations, Subpart W of Part 85 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, in order to extend warranty coverage to failure of the OBD
test.
OBD equipped vehicles will not constitute a significant portion of
the fleet for several years and existing I/M tests will be identifying
malfunctioning vehicles during that time. Therefore, EPA does not
attribute substantial air quality benefits to OBD until the year 2005.
At this point, EPA believes it is too early to determine whether
existing or newly established I/M test procedures may be replaced by
OBD or how long it will take to refine the OBD technology to the point
where it could substitute for other I/M test procedures. The Agency
plans to evaluate the effectiveness of OBD checks to determine whether
they can substitute for all or some of the I/M tests otherwise being
performed on OBD equipped vehicles. Nevertheless, as long as a
significant fraction of the fleet is not OBD equipped, the high-
technology I/M tests established in the federal I/M rule will continue
to be needed.
V. Discussion of Major Issues
A. Components of the OBD Inspection
1. Test Procedure
When a vehicle arrives at the I/M lane, the inspector must
determine whether that vehicle is equipped with an OBD system
consistent with Sec. 86.094-17 in order to determine whether an OBD
check will be performed during the inspection. In accordance with
section 202(m) of the Act, case-by-case waivers are available to any
manufacturer that is unable to meet these requirements in 1994 or 1995
model years. Thus, the OBD inspection will apply to all 1996 and later
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. Subpart S requires the
inspector to determine the model year of the vehicle when inputting
other vehicle identification parameters.
After establishing that the vehicle is subject to OBD system
requirements, the inspector will perform several steps to complete the
test. First, the inspector must locate the vehicle connector (the data
link connector) and attach the inspection computer to it. The OBD rules
require that the vehicle connector's location, accessibility, design,
and function be consistent with SAE J1962 ``Diagnostic Connector,''
published in June 1992.
The connector is required to be located in the passenger
compartment in the area bounded by the driver's end of the instrument
panel to 300 mm beyond the vehicle centerline. It is to be attached to
the instrument panel and accessible from the driver's seat.
The vehicle connector is required to be readily accessible. Removal
of the instrument panel cover, connector cover, or any other barriers
must not require the use of a tool. The vehicle connector should allow
the inspector to employ a one-handed/blind insertion of the mating test
equipment connector.
After the test system is connected to the vehicle, EPA proposes
that the test system employ the procedure for retrieving codes
specified in SAE J1979 ``E/E Diagnostic Test Modes,'' (DEC91), cited in
the OBD rules. This involves two steps. Initially, the test system
should send to the OBD computer a request to retrieve and record
whether the MIL is commanded to be illuminated. Following this, the
test equipment should send a request to retrieve and record the
specific codes that are stored.
EPA proposes that the State establish in its test procedure the
condition the vehicle shall be in during the OBD inspection: ``key-on/
engine-off'' (KOEO) or ``key-on/engine-running'' (KOER). This must be
clearly specified in the State's test procedure to allow for
consistency among all State test sites.
Finally, this proposal does not specify whether the OBD inspection
should take place before or after the other I/M tests. EPA is allowing
the states to determine the placement of the OBD test within the I/M
lane. In addition, EPA is seeking comments on the feasibility of
conducting OBD inspections while the IM240 test is being conducted, and
thus seeks information on manufacturer specifications for accessing OBD
systems. Individuals with information relevant to this inquiry are
requested to submit such information during the public comment period.
2. Anti-Tampering Provisions
In addition to providing data pertaining to stored OBD codes, the
information provided by the test equipment's initial request provides a
safeguard against any tampering with the OBD system immediately prior
to the test. The OBD rules require that a readiness code be stored in
the on-board computer to indicate when the diagnostic system has
completed all monitoring checks and determined that all monitored
systems are functioning properly. This will enable I/M inspectors to be
certain that malfunction codes have not merely been cleared, without
actual repair of the malfunction, since the last OBD check of the
vehicle's emission-related control systems. If the vehicle's OBD system
indicates that the on-board diagnostic evaluation of any module is
incomplete, EPA proposes that the information contained in the OBD
system be considered void and the driver instructed to return after the
vehicle has been run long enough to allow the test cycle of all
supported modules to be completed.
B. Standards for Failure of the OBD Inspection
Inspection of the OBD system requires the presence of a properly
functioning vehicle connector. Therefore, if the inspector has
determined that the
[[Page 43095]]
vehicle is subject to OBD inspections but the vehicle connector is
missing or has been tampered with, EPA proposes that the vehicle shall
fail the inspection.
Section 202(m)(4) of the CAAA requires that OBD system information
be unrestricted and accessible via standardized connectors and not
dependent on access codes or any device provided only by the
manufacturer. The information obtained from the OBD system must be
usable without need for any unique decoding information or device.
To satisfy these mandates, EPA requires manufacturers to conform to
uniform industry standards adopted through the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The OBD rules require that diagnostic trouble codes be
consistent with SAE J2012 ``Recommended Format and Messages for
Diagnostic Trouble Code Definitions,'' published in March 1992.
The standardization of diagnostic codes allows failing codes to be
specifically identified in this proposal. EPA has developed a list of
all emission-related powertrain diagnostic trouble codes which will
result in failure of the OBD test if present when the MIL is commanded
to be illuminated. Thus, EPA is proposing that the vehicle shall fail
inspection if the vehicle's MIL is commanded to be illuminated as a
result of a failure related to the emission control system. Emission-
related failures are determined by the presence of an emission-related
trouble code.
Trouble codes may be present due to temporary, reversible
conditions. As discussed above, EPA regulations require trouble codes
to continue to be stored, once registered, unless 40 engine warm-ups
occur without the fault of being redetected, while the regulations
allow the MIL to be extinguished after three driving cycles of similar
operation in which the fault does not reoccur. EPA is proposing to
limit the potential for false I/M failures by proposing that vehicles
fail the OBD inspection only if both (1) emission-related failure codes
are present and (2) the MIL is commanded to be illuminated.
Furthermore, if the MIL is commanded to be illuminated, EPA
proposes that the inspector visually inspect the MIL. EPA proposes that
the vehicle also fail the OBD inspection if the MIL is commanded to be
illuminated and is not illuminated.
Note that the list generated for the purpose of this rule does not
define what constitutes ``emission-related'' for the purpose of any
other regulation. This list defines what constitutes I/M failures.
EPA's proposed list of codes resulting in I/M failure includes all
codes related to fuel and air metering, the ignition system or misfire,
auxiliary emission controls, and the computer and output circuits. Some
of the codes related to the transmission are also included. For
example, power steering codes are included because power steering
affects fuel and air management during certain vehicle operations, such
as turning right or left. However, codes pertaining to air conditioning
and cruise control are not included.
The OBD rule in Sec. 86.094-17(h)(2) specifically requires fault
codes to be consistent with SAE J2012, Part C, of March 1992. However,
the proposed list of codes was generated using the March 1994 version
of J2012. This version is currently on the ballot for SAE approval. If
it is not approved, the final rule will use the March 1992 version.
SAE is likely to continue to update J2012, primarily in response to
changes in automotive technology and industry needs. Therefore, EPA
shall make revisions to this rule as SAE J2012 is revised. As the list
of diagnostic trouble code definitions is updated by SAE and EPA
through rulemaking, EPA expects states to revise the list of codes used
to determine vehicle pass/fail status.
C. OBD Component of the Performance Standard
Since OBD inspections are an element of the I/M performance
standard as established in the rule promulgated on November 5, 1992 and
a specifically required component of the program, OBD inspections do
not generate emission reduction surpluses relative to the performance
standard, i.e., they are not substitutes for achieving required
emissions reductions but rather required supplements. However, while
including OBD inspections does not generate additional credit toward
the I/M performance standard, it may generate additional benefit. The
actual magnitude of benefits were estimated in the OBD rule itself (58
FR 9482-9483). EPA will be assessing the contribution the OBD
inspection actually makes once testing starts and will revise future
revisions of the MOBILE emissions model to account for these benefits.
Due to the timing of this requirement, OBD checks will play no
significant role in attaining 15% reductions by 1996.
D. Administrative Program Requirements
1. Data Collection and Analysis
The proposed regulations included in today's action set out
specific requirements for data collection and analysis to include
information which will enable an analysis of OBD's role in the I/M
program.
Inconsistent data collection has often hampered analysis of program
operation: some programs have been unable to calculate basic statistics
such as the number of vehicles tested and failed because of incomplete
data collection. Even in programs where data collection has occurred,
data analysis has not been used extensively in program evaluation.
Subpart S establishes specific data collection requirements for I/M
programs. This action proposes additional data collection and analysis
requirements for vehicles subject to OBD inspection. This will allow
the results of the OBD check to be compared with those of the emission
test. Specifically, these data include the number of vehicles that fail
the OBD test and pass the emission test and the number of vehicles
which pass the OBD test and fail the emission test. This action also
proposes that the number of vehicles which have consistent test results
(i.e., fail or pass both tests) be reported.
EPA is also proposing the collection and analysis of data
pertaining to the MIL. Specifically, these data include the number of
vehicles whose MIL is commanded to be illuminated but who have no codes
stored and the number of vehicles whose MIL is not commanded to be
illuminated but who have codes stored. This action also proposes that
data collection include the number of vehicles whose MIL is commanded
to be illuminated and who have OBD codes stored, and the number of
vehicles whose MIL is not commanded to be illuminated and who have no
OBD codes stored.
OBD inspections can be viewed as a supplement to the inspection
regime which improves its effectiveness in finding high emitting
vehicles, but also as a possible long-term replacement to the other
tests for identifying high emitting vehicles. The analysis of the
estimated emission reductions associated with OBD assumes that OBD will
ultimately identify and cause to be repaired those vehicles in all I/M
areas which are capable of being identified by an enhanced I/M test,
specifically the IM240, purge and pressure tests. This will be verified
by data collection and analysis during the initial years of OBD
implementation. Thus, this information is essential to evaluating the
present and future role of IM240, purge, pressure, and OBD tests in I/M
programs.
E. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions
Section 202(m)(3) of the Act requires states to amend I/M program
[[Page 43096]]
implementation plans to incorporate the inspection of on-board
diagnostic systems within two years after promulgation of regulations
requiring such inspection. Thus, in order to be considered complete and
fully approvable, I/M SIP submittals must include OBD inspections
within two years after final promulgation of this rule.
F. Implementation Deadlines
The incorporation of OBD inspections into both basic and enhanced
I/M programs should be implemented as expeditiously as possible. This
action proposes that OBD requirements for I/M programs be fully
implemented with respect to all administrative details by January 1,
1998. However, there will be some variation depending upon model year
coverage of the local I/M program.
VI. 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.
Very few states continue to operate decentralized test-and-repair
I/M programs. 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.
In addition to providing information about malfunctions which
result in excess emissions, OBD code inspections will provide
information about other faulty vehicle components. EPA recommends that
this information be provided to the vehicle owner even if the vehicle
passes the OBD test, enabling the owner to more efficiently repair any
malfunctioning components.
VII. Public Participation
A. Comments and the Public Docket
EPA desires full public participation in arriving at final
decisions in this Rulemaking action. EPA solicits comments on all
aspects of this proposal from all interested parties. Wherever
applicable, full supporting data and detailed analysis should also be
submitted to allow EPA to make maximum use of the comments. All
comments should be directed to the Air Docket, Docket No. A-94-21.
Commenters are especially encouraged to provide information on
manufacturer specifications for accessing OBD systems. Commenters who
wish to submit proprietary information for consideration should clearly
separate such information from other comments by--
Labeling proprietary information ``Confidential Business
Information'' and
Sending proprietary information directly to the contact
person listed (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and not to the
public docket.
This will help insure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket. If a commenter wants EPA to use a
submission labeled as confidential business information as part of the
basis of the final rule, then a nonconfidential version of the
document, which summarizes the key data or information, should be sent
to the docket.
Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed
by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40
CFR Part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission
when it is received by EPA, the submission may be made available to the
public without notifying the commenters.
B. Public Hearing
Anyone wishing to present testimony about this proposal at the
public hearing (see DATES) should, if possible, notify the contact
person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least seven days prior
to the day of the hearing. The contact person should be given an
estimate of the time required for the presentation of testimony and
notification of any need for audio/visual equipment. A sign-up sheet
will be available at the registration table the morning of the hearing
for scheduling those who have not notified the contact earlier. This
testimony will be scheduled on a first-come, first-serve basis to
follow the previously scheduled testimony.
EPA requests that approximately 50 copies of the statement or
material to be presented be brought to the hearing for distribution to
the audience. In addition, EPA would find it helpful to receive an
advance copy of any statement or material to be presented at the
hearing at least one week before the scheduled hearing date. This is to
give EPA staff adequate time to review such material before the
hearing. Such advance copies should be submitted to the contact person
listed.
The official records of the hearing will be kept open for 30 days
following the hearing to allow submission of rebuttal and supplementary
testimony. All such submittals should be directed to the Air Docket,
Docket No. A-94-21 (see ADDRESSES).
The hearing will be conducted informally, and technical rules of
evidence will not apply. A written transcript of the hearing will be
placed in the above docket for review. Anyone desiring to purchase a
copy of the transcript should make individual arrangements with the
court reporter recording the proceeding.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation
Under Executive Order 12866 [58 Federal Register 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.
[[Page 43097]]
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 Record Keeping Requirement
This proposal 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 eight additional summary statistics based on this
information. The existing collection has been approved (OMB no. 2060-
0252) through February 28, 1996. This additional burden will not be
imposed until after the current 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.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden to Chief, Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M. Street S.W.
(Mail Code 2136), Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' The
final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this proposal will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities and, therefore, is not subject to the requirement of a
Regulatory Impact Analysis. A small entity may include a small
government entity or jurisdiction. 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 certification is based on the fact that the I/
M areas impacted by the proposed rulemaking do not meet the definition
of a small government jurisdiction, that is, ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than 50,000.''
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, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research,
Warranties.
Dated: July 25, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 51 and 85 of title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended to
read 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(a)(2), 7475(e), 7502 (a) and (b),
7503, 7601(a)(1) and 7602. Q04
2. Section 51.351 is proposed to be 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 40
CFR 51.357.
* * * * *
3. Section 51.352 is proposed to be amended by adding text to
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 40 CFR 51.357.
* * * * *
4. Section 51.357 is proposed to be 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 85.2223, at a minimum.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) On-board diagnostics test standards. Vehicles shall fail if the
vehicle connector has been tampered with, or if the malfunction
indicator light is commanded to be illuminated and any of the
diagnostic trouble codes listed in 40 CFR 85.2207 are present, at a
minimum.
* * * * *
5. Section 51.358 is proposed to be 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 proposed to be amended by adding (a)(25) as
follows:
Sec. 51.365 Data collection.
(a) * * *
[[Page 43098]]
(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 proposed to be amended by adding (a)(2)(xi)
through (xviii) 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 tests.
(xii) Failing the on-board diagnostic check and passing the I/M
emission tests.
(xiii) Passing both the on-board diagnostic check and I/M emission
tests.
(xiv) Failing both the on-board diagnostic check and I/M emission
tests.
(xv) MIL is commanded on and no codes are stored.
(xvi) MIL is not commanded on and codes are stored.
(xvii) MIL is commanded on and codes are stored.
(xviii) MIL is not commanded on and codes are not stored.
* * * * *
8. Section 51.372 is proposed to be 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 (two years after publication of final rule).
* * * * *
9. Section 51.373 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraph (f)
as follows:
Sec. 51.373 Implementation Deadlines.
* * * * *
(f) On-board diagnostic checks shall be implemented as part of I/M
programs by January 1, 1998.
PART 85--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR
VEHICLE ENGINES
10. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7507, 7522, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543,
7547, 7601(a), unless otherwise noted.
11-12. A new Sec. 85.2207 is proposed to be added to subpart W to
read as follows:
Sec. 85.2207 On-Board Diagnostics Test Standards.
(a) A vehicle shall fail the on-board diagnostics test if it is a
1996 or newer vehicle and the vehicle connector is missing or has been
tampered with.
(b) A vehicle shall fail the on-board diagnostics test if the
malfunction indicator light is commanded to be illuminated and it is
not illuminated.
(c) 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 ``Recommended Format
and Messages for Diagnostic Trouble Code Definitions,'' (MAR94) Part C,
are present (where X refers to any digit). Copies of SAE J2012 may be
obtained from the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400
Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001:
(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.
(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.
(d) The list of codes shall be updated with future revisions of
this rule, in conjunction with changes to 40 CFR 86.094-17(h) (3).
13. A new Sec. 85.2223 is proposed to be added to subpart W to read
as follows:
Sec. 85.2223 On-Board Diagnostic Test Procedures.
(a) 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:
(1) The on-board diagnostic inspection shall be conducted either
with key-on/engine-off or key-on/engine-running.
(2) The inspector shall locate the vehicle connector and plug the
test system into the connector.
(3) The test system shall send a Mode $01, PID $01 request to
determine the evaluation status of the vehicle's on-board diagnostic
system. The vehicle shall be automatically rejected from testing if
Data B, Data C, and Data D indicate that the evaluation is not complete
for any module supported by on-board diagnostic evaluation. The
customer shall be instructed to return
[[Page 43099]]
after the vehicle has been run long enough to allow the testing of all
supported modules to be completed. If Data B, Data C, and Data D again
indicate that the vehicle should be rejected when it returns, the
vehicle shall be failed.
(4) If Data B, Data C, and Data D indicate that the vehicle's on-
board diagnostic evaluation is complete, the test system shall
determine the status of the MIL illumination bit and record status
information in the vehicle test record.
(i) If the malfunction indicator light bit is commanded to be
illuminated and any of the codes listed at 40 CFR 85.2207(c) are
present, the test system shall retrieve and record the codes in the
vehicle test record. The vehicle shall fail the on-board diagnostic
inspection.
(ii) If the malfunction indicator light bit is not commanded to be
illuminated and any of the codes listed at 40 CFR 85.2207(c) are
present, the test system shall retrieve and record the codes in the
vehicle test record. The vehicle shall pass the on-board diagnostic
inspection.
(iii) If the malfunction indicator light bit is commanded to be
illuminated, the inspector shall inspect the MIL to determine if it is
illuminated. The status of the MIL shall be recorded in the vehicle
test record. If the MIL is commanded to be illuminated but is not, the
vehicle shall fail the on-board diagnostic inspection.
(5) The motorist shall be provided with the on-board diagnostic
test results, including the codes retrieved, the status of the MIL
illumination command, and the pass or fail result.
14. A new Sec. 85.2231 is proposed to be added to subpart W 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.''
(b) The test system shall meet all vehicle electrical/electronic
compatibility requirements for ``OBD II Scan Tools'' as specified in
SAE J1978 and J2201, including the length of the electrical cable
between the vehicle and the test system.
(c) The test system shall be capable of performing all
communication functions as specified in SAE J1978, J1979, and J2205.
Specifically, the system shall be capable of checking for the systems
supported by the on-board diagnostic system and the evaluation status
of supported systems (test complete/test not complete) in Mode $01 PID
$01, as well as be able to request the codes, as specified in SAE
J1979. In addition, the system shall have the capability to include bi-
directional communication, when such features are available, and allow
for non-intrusive pressure and purge checks. Copies of all of the SAE
documents cited above may be obtained from the Society of Automotive
Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001.
(d) The test system shall automatically make a pass, fail, or
reject decision, as specified in the test procedure in 40 CFR
85.2223(a).
[FR Doc. 95-20539 Filed 8-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
