[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 170 (Friday, August 30, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45898-45903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21946]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 86
[AMS-FRL-5602-3]
RIN 2060-AC65
Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor
Vehicle Engines: Regulations Requiring On-Board Diagnostic (OBD)
Systems--Acceptance of Revised California OBD II Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rulemaking revises requirements associated with on-
board diagnostic (OBD) systems. The federal OBD rulemaking, published
February 19, 1993, allowed for compliance with California OBD II
requirements to satisfy federal OBD requirements through the 1998 model
year. The California Air Resources Board has recently revised their OBD
II requirements. This rulemaking promulgates appropriate revisions to
federal OBD regulations such that compliance with the recently revised
OBD II requirements will satisfy federal OBD. This rulemaking does not
require that manufacturers comply with OBD II anti-tampering
provisions. OBD systems in general provide substantial ozone benefits.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective October 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in
Docket No. A-90-35, and are available for public inspection and
photocopying between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The
telephone number is (202) 260-7548 and the facsimile number is (202)
260-4400. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket
material.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Sherwood, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, telephone
(313) 668-4405, or Internet e-mail at
sherwood.todd@epamail.epa.gov.''
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those which
manufacture new motor vehicles and engines. Regulated categories and
entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. New motor vehicle and engine
manufacturers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 product is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria in Sec. 86.094-17 of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular product, consult the person listed in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Electronic Copies of Rulemaking Documents
Electronic copies of the preamble and the regulatory text of this
final rulemaking are available via the Internet on the Office of Mobile
Sources (OMS) Home Page (http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/). Users can find
OBD related information and documents through the following path once
they have accessed the OMS Home Page: ``Automobiles,'' ``I/M & OBD,''
``On-Board Diagnostics Files.''
Electronic copies of the preamble and the regulatory text of this
final
[[Page 45899]]
rulemaking are also available on the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board System
(TTN BBS). Users are able to access and download TTN BBS files on their
first call. After logging onto TTN BBS, to navigate through the BBS to
the files of interest, the user must enter the appropriate command at
each of a series of menus. The steps required to access information on
this rulemaking are listed below. The service is free, except for the
cost of the phone call.
TTN BBS: 919-541-5742 (1,200-14,400 bps, no parity, eight data
bits, one stop bit). Voice help: 919-541-5384 Internet address: TELNET
ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov Off-line: Mondays from 8-12 Noon ET.
1. Technology Transfer Network Top Menu: GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL AREAS
(Bulletin Boards)
2. TTN TECHNICAL INFORMATION AREAS: OMS--Mobile Sources Information
3. OMS BBS === MAIN MENU FILE TRANSFERS: Rulemaking & Reporting
4. RULEMAKING PACKAGES: Inspection & Maintenance
5. Inspection & Maintenance Rulemaking Areas: File Area #2...On-Board
Diagnostics
At this stage, the system will list all available OBD Review files.
To download a file, select a transfer protocol which will match the
terminal software on your computer, then set your own software to
receive the file using that same protocol.
If unfamiliar with handling compressed (i.e., ZIP'd) files, go to
the TTN topmenu, System Utilities (Command: 1) for information and the
necessary program to download in order to unZIP the files of interest
after downloading to your computer. After getting the files you want
onto your computer, you can quit TTN BBS with the oodbye command.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction and Background
II. Requirements of this Final Rulemaking
III. Public Participation
IV. Discussion of Issues
V. Cost Effectiveness
VI. Administrative Requirements
I. Introduction and Background
On February 19, 1993, the EPA promulgated a final rulemaking (58 FR
9468, February 19, 1993) requiring manufacturers of light-duty vehicles
(LDV) and light-duty trucks (LDT) to install on-board emission control
diagnostics (OBD) systems on such vehicles beginning in model year
1994. The regulations promulgated in that final rulemaking require that
manufacturers install OBD systems which monitor emission control
components for any malfunction or deterioration causing exceedances of
certain emission thresholds, and alert the vehicle operator to the need
for repair. That rulemaking also requires that, when a malfunction
occurs, diagnostic information must be stored in the vehicle's computer
to assist the mechanic in diagnosis and repair.
Additionally, that rulemaking makes an allowance for manufacturers
to satisfy the federal OBD requirements through the 1998 model year by
installing systems satisfying the California OBD II requirements
pertaining to those model years. This allowance means that
manufacturers could concentrate on designing one system for OBD
compliance and installing that system nationwide during allowable model
years. As EPA regulations cannot be revised except through EPA
rulemaking, the OBD II requirements allowed under this provision were,
and have continued to be, those existing on the date of publication of
the federal OBD final rulemaking. This means that subsequent changes
made to the OBD II requirements by the California Air Resources Board
(ARB) may be inconsistent and potentially unacceptable for federal OBD
compliance.
On March 23, 1995, EPA published a direct final rule revising
specific federal OBD provisions, including a provision that would allow
manufacturers to comply with federal OBD requirements by optionally
complying with more recent OBD II regulations. EPA believed that the
March 23 direct final rule would not be controversial. In that direct
final rule, EPA stated that, ``If notice is received that any person or
persons wish to submit adverse comments regarding some, but not all of
the actions taken in this rulemaking, then EPA shall withdraw this
final action and publish a proposal only with regard to the actions for
which notice has been received.'' EPA stated that it would make such a
withdrawal if adverse comment was received by April 24, 1995.
EPA received adverse comment from the Motor and Equipment
Manufacturers Association (MEMA). This adverse comment was placed in
the public docket for viewing. The comments submitted by MEMA were
adverse with regard to the revision of 40 CFR 86.094-17(j) that would
allow manufacturers the option of complying with the recently revised
California OBD II requirements (California Air Resources Board Mail-Out
#95-03). (MEMA had initially objected to other specific provisions of
the direct final rule, but MEMA withdrew these objections in a letter
signed May 18, 1995.) Therefore, EPA subsequently removed the provision
of the March 23 direct final rule that pertained to optional compliance
with the revised OBD II requirements of ARB Mail-Out #95-03 (60 FR
37945, July 25, 1995). As a result, the language of the prior final
rule published on February 19, 1993 (58 FR 9468) allowing compliance
with California OBD II requirements was reinstated in Sec. 86.094-
17(j). EPA then reproposed the provision allowing manufacturers to meet
the federal OBD requirements by complying with revised California OBD
II requirements. The proposal did not, however, require that
manufacturers meet the anti-tampering provisions in California's OBD II
regulations. (60 FR 55521, November 1, 1995).
II. Requirements of this Final Rulemaking
This final rulemaking allows manufacturers to comply with federal
OBD requirements by optionally complying with the revised and recently
adopted California OBD II regulations. The allowance for optional
compliance with California OBD II has already been established in the
federal OBD program and was incorporated into the federal OBD final
rulemaking in February 1993. However, since that time, the ARB has made
several revisions to the OBD II regulations.
Because the Agency cannot simply accept the revised OBD II without
undergoing the federal regulatory process, any optional compliance with
California OBD II under the preexisting federal regulations had to be
done according to the OBD II regulations as they existed in February
1993 (ARB Mail Out #92-56, November, 1992). However, the ARB has
determined that several manufacturers would have difficulty complying
with the OBD II regulations as they existed in February 1993. The most
notable requirements that currently pose difficulties are those for
engine misfire detection under all positive torque engine speeds and
conditions and full OBD II implementation on alternative fueled
vehicles. Additionally, most manufacturers have indicated difficulty
meeting other aspects of the OBD II regulations due to, for example,
the complexity of the computer software requirements, and unpredictable
driver actions such as resting a foot on the gas
[[Page 45900]]
pedal while stopped at a traffic light. It is these additional
difficulties that have prompted ARB to provide a ``deficiency''
allowance in their revised OBD II regulations whereby manufacturers can
certify as OBD II compliant despite some reasonably acceptable and
unplanned deficiency in the OBD system.
As a result of the ARB revisions to OBD II, and to remain
consistent with the original intent of providing for optional
compliance with OBD II for federal OBD purposes, and because EPA has
determined that OBD systems complying with the revised OBD II
requirements fully satisfy the intent of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and federal OBD regulations, this final rulemaking will
provide the same option but will require that manufacturers choosing
this option comply with the more recent OBD II regulations contained in
ARB Mail Out #95-34.
In the proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed allowing manufacturers to
comply with federal OBD requirements by optionally complying with more
recent OBD II regulations, specifically those contained in ARB Mail Out
#95-03, made publicly available January 19, 1995. In this final
rulemaking, the applicable OBD II regulations are contained in Mail Out
#95-34, September 26, 1995. Mail Out #95-34 is identical in content to
Mail Out #95-03, the only differences being slight editorial changes
and reference to an updated version of a Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) recommended practice (i.e., SAE J1939) that is not
applicable to light-duty vehicles or light-duty trucks and therefore is
not applicable under the provisions of this final rulemaking.
As a result of this final rule, any federal vehicles complying with
federal OBD by optionally complying with California OBD II are allowed
the same deficiencies as allowed under the OBD II provisions. This is
consistent with revisions deemed necessary by EPA and subsequently made
to federal OBD requirements through a direct final rulemaking published
in March of 1995 (60 FR 15242, March 23, 1995). Note, however, that a
manufacturer requesting certification of a deficient OBD II system must
receive EPA acceptance of any deficiency independently of an acceptance
made by ARB. The Agency will use the same criteria specified by the ARB
in the OBD II regulation, (footnote: Those criteria being the extent to
which the requirements are satisfied overall on the vehicle
applications in question, the extent to which the resultant diagnostic
system design will be more effective than earlier OBD systems, and a
demonstrated good-faith effort to meet the requirements in full by
evaluating and considering the best available monitoring technology)
except that EPA will not provide deficiency allowances for lack of
catalyst monitors or oxygen sensor monitors because the Clean Air Act
specifically requires these monitors no later than the 1996 model year.
The Agency will make every effort to determine the acceptability of OBD
II deficiency requests in concert with ARB staff to avoid the potential
for conflicting determinations. However, the extent to which the
agencies can make concurrent and coordinated findings will rely heavily
on the manufacturer, who will be expected to provide any necessary
information to both agencies in parallel rather than pursuing
deficiency determinations on a separate basis.
III. Public Participation
On November 1, 1995, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) which set forth proposed requirements for complying with federal
OBD regulations by optionally demonstrating compliance with the revised
California OBD II regulations. On December 13, 1995, a public hearing
was held. The period for submission of comments on the NPRM was
scheduled to close on January 16, 1996.
The comments received in response to the NPRM have not been
extensive, and concentrate primarily on the issue of anti-tampering
provisions. More specifically, the comments speak to the
appropriateness of the anti-tampering provisions contained in the
California OBD II regulations but intentionally excluded from any
federal OBD compliance requirements. Comments were also received on the
allowance of optional OBD II compliance for federal OBD purposes
indefinitely, rather than through only the 1998 model year.
Comments were received from original equipment manufacturers,
automotive aftermarket manufacturers and service providers, and one
automotive consultant. The comments along with EPA's analyses and
responses are discussed in the following section. A formal written
``Response to Comments'' document has not been prepared in association
with this rulemaking as all pertinent issues are sufficiently discussed
in this preamble.
IV. Discussion of Issues
A. General Comments on the Proposal
Summary of Proposal: The proposal allowed demonstration of
compliance with revised California OBD II requirements (Mail Out #95-
03) as satisfying federal OBD requirements through the 1998 model year.
Summary of Comments: The American Automobile Manufacturers
Association (AAMA) fully supports the proposed regulatory action,
stating that it will help by limiting the burden on manufacturers
associated with the extremely technologically-challenging development
of enhanced on-board diagnostic systems. The Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) also stated its support,
as did American Suzuki Motor Corporation and Michael Jay Grossman, an
automotive certification consultant. Each of these commenters also
stated that EPA should allow compliance against ARB Mail Out #95-34
rather than Mail Out #95-03, as was proposed.
Analysis of Comments: EPA agrees that Mail Out #95-34 should be
used rather than the proposed Mail Out #95-03. Mail Out #95-34 is
identical in content to Mail Out #95-03, the only differences being
slight editorial changes (the removal of strikeout and underlined text
differentiating old from new text) and reference to an updated version
of a SAE recommended practice (i.e., SAE J1939) that is not applicable
to light-duty vehicles or light-duty trucks and therefore is not
applicable under the provisions of this final rulemaking.
EPA Decision: The final regulatory language will refer to ARB Mail
Out #95-34.
B. California OBD II Anti-Tampering Provisions
Summary of Proposal: The proposal allowed demonstration of
compliance with revised California OBD II requirements (Mail Out #95-
03) as satisfying federal OBD requirements through the 1998 model year,
except that compliance with the tampering protection provisions of the
California OBD II requirements was not required to satisfy federal OBD.
Summary of Comments: Representatives of certain organizations
within the automotive aftermarket made the following comments: (1) EPA
should defer any decision in this proceeding until EPA has rendered a
decision on California's request for a waiver of preemption under
section 209 for its OBD II regulations; (2) EPA's incorporation of
California OBD rules is an unlawful delegation of its powers; (3) EPA
may not certify vehicles containing the anti-tampering devices required
under the California OBD II regulations, because such devices violate
sections 202(m) (4) and (5) and 207 of the Act; (4) the anti-tampering
provisions of the
[[Page 45901]]
California OBD II regulations violate the Semiconductor Chip Protection
Act; (5) the exclusion of the anti-tampering provisions from this
rulemaking is inadequate, because as long as the anti-tampering
regulations are required in California, manufacturers will use such
devices in all their vehicles; (6) the anti-tampering provisions are
unnecessary and eliminate competition in the repair of vehicles; (7)
the anti-tampering provisions of the California OBD II regulations
impose significant economic impact on the automotive aftermarket.
AAMA commented that it believes that both EPA and ARB have the
general legal authority to require anti-tampering measures. Therefore,
AAMA can see no viable cause for not proceeding with the NPRM as
proposed.
Analysis of Comments: (1) Regarding deferment of this rulemaking
until the OBD waiver proceeding is completed, EPA has been processing
the OBD waiver final decision at the same time it has been processing
this final rule. EPA intends to complete the OBD waiver decision either
prior to, at the same time of, or shortly after, the completion of this
rule. However, EPA does not believe that the decisions necessary for
completion of this rulemaking need to be delayed until after the waiver
decision in completed. As discussed below, the issues raised by the
aftermarket in this proceeding and the OBD II waiver proceeding are
more appropriately dealt with in that proceeding, and are not necessary
for completion of this rulemaking. Should the issues raised by the
aftermarket be resolved in favor of the automotive aftermarket, that
resolution will carry over into EPA's broader motor vehicle program,
including the certification of any vehicle that complies with the
requirements promulgated in this rulemaking.
(2) Regarding the contention that EPA has unlawfully delegated its
powers, EPA disagrees with this allegation. As the comments
acknowledge, EPA has gone through a complete notice and comment
rulemaking and found that the regulations that it incorporates today
are consistent with the Act and that it is reasonable and appropriate
for EPA to allow manufacturers to meet EPA's requirements by showing
compliance with California's OBD II regulations, excluding its anti-
tampering provisions. This is not delegation of power, but the
acknowledgment that other entities besides EPA may devise reasonable
methods for meeting particular requirements of the Act. These entities
are not making decisions in place of EPA. EPA's decision to incorporate
OBD II requirements is independent of California's initial decision to
require OBD II in California. Commenters' line of reasoning would seem
to require that EPA purposely ignore any sets of procedures drafted by
another organization, (e.g., a state or a voluntary industry
organization like SAE), no matter how reasonable, simply because EPA
did not think of the procedures first. The restrictions on delegation
of powers in no way require that result.
(3 and 4) The comments allege that California's anti-tampering
provisions violate certain provisions of the Clean Air Act and other
federal law. The comments, however, never explain why such allegations
are relevant to this rulemaking. The regulations EPA promulgates today
explicitly exclude California's anti-tampering provisions from the
federal requirements. EPA is taking no action in this rulemaking that
has any effect on manufacturers legal requirement or ability to
voluntarily equip vehicles with tampering protection measures. To the
extent manufacturers were permitted to do so prior to this rulemaking,
they can do so after the rulemaking. To the extent the Clean Air Act
prevents them from equipping vehicles with tampering protection
measures, nothing in this rulemaking allows manufacturers to circumvent
the Clean Air Act's provisions. The issue of whether the California OBD
II anti-tampering provisions violate the Clean Air Act is simply
irrelevant to this rulemaking, because this rulemaking does not require
manufacturers to meet the anti-tampering provisions. As discussed
above, EPA will be reviewing the comments the aftermarket has provided
on these issues in the California OBD II waiver proceeding. The
comments are relevant in that proceeding, at least to a certain extent,
because in that proceeding, EPA is specifically reviewing the
consistency of California's OBD II provisions, including the anti-
tampering provisions, with section 202(a) of the Act.
(5) Regarding whether exclusion of the anti-tampering provisions is
sufficient for the needs of the commenters, the appropriate issue is
again whether the comments are relevant to this proceeding. The
commenters admit in their comments, as well as in a letter to the
Administrator dated April 30, 1996, that manufacturers will install the
anti-tampering devices on their vehicles, and in fact are currently
doing so, even in the absence of these regulations. Thus, the presence
or absence of these regulations is irrelevant to whether manufacturers
voluntarily equip vehicles with tampering protection measures. As noted
above, EPA will deal with the issues raised by commenters in venues
where such issues are relevant.
(6 and 7) The practicality, cost, and reasonableness of the anti-
tampering provisions are likewise irrelevant to this proceeding because
the anti-tampering provisions are not required by this proceeding.
EPA Decision: The regulatory language need not be changed from that
proposed, with the exception of reference to ARB Mail Out #95-34 rather
than #95-03. Should the anti-tampering provisions of the California OBD
II regulations be deemed unlawful via the waiver process or other
means, they will be removed from the OBD II regulations by the Air
Resources Board and certification approval of vehicles containing anti-
tampering measures consistent with those provisions will cease by both
EPA and ARB.
C. Acceptance of California OBD II Beyond the 1998 Model Year
Summary of Proposal: The proposal allowed demonstration of
compliance with revised California OBD II requirements (Mail Out #95-
03) as satisfying federal OBD requirements through the 1998 model year.
Summary of Comments: Michael Jay Grossman suggested that EPA allow
small volume manufacturers (<10,000 u.s.="" sales="" per="" year)="" the="" optional="" compliance="" against="" the="" california="" obd="" ii="" regulations="" beyond="" the="" 1998="" model="" year,="" rather="" than="" eliminating="" this="" option="" beginning="" in="" the="" 1999="" model="" year.="" mr.="" grossman="" reasons="" that="" such="" an="" allowance="" will="" present="" no="" loss="" of="" federal="" obd="" program="" benefits="" due="" to="" the="" extremely="" small="" number="" of="" small="" volume="" manufacturer="" vehicles="" in="" the="" overall="" vehicle="" population.="" analysis="" of="" comments:="" mr.="" grossman's="" suggestion="" was="" made="" by="" several="" commenters="" during="" development="" of="" the="" february="" 1993,="" federal="" obd="" final="" rulemaking,="" although="" the="" comments="" then="" were="" not="" necessarily="" limited="" to="" small="" volume="" manufacturers.="" the="" same="" arguments="" against="" such="" a="" policy="" apply="" now="" as="" applied="" then.="" this="" alternative="" was="" neither="" proposed="" by="" the="" agency,="" nor="" is="" it="" an="" attractive="" alternative="" from="" the="" agency's="" perspective.="" the="" federal="" regulations="" contain="" enforcement="" approaches="" consistent="" with="" past="" epa="" policies="" which="" rely="" on="" performance="" evaluations,="" rather="" than="" specific="" design="" requirements,="" to="" encourage="" innovative="" control="" strategies="" and="" improvements="" in="" technology.="" also,="" having="" effectively="" two="" separate="" regulations="" mandating="" the="" same="" type="" of="" program="" is="" unnecessarily="" inefficient="" to="" enforce.="" [[page="" 45902]]="" further,="" the="" current="" option="" for="" california="" obd="" ii="" demonstration="" puts="" epa="" in="" the="" position="" of="" making="" mandatory="" regulatory="" revisions="" in="" the="" event="" arb="" revises="" the="" obd="" ii="" regulations.="" epa="" regulations="" cannot="" incorporate="" a="" moving="" target="" and,="" therefore,="" every="" regulatory="" revision="" by="" arb="" requires="" a="" corresponding="" revision="" to="" federal="" regulations="" should="" the="" arb="" revision="" be="" deemed="" appropriate="" for="" federal="" purposes.="" this="" is="" evidenced="" by="" the="" reality="" of="" today's="" rulemaking,="" which="" is="" being="" done="" only="" because="" of="" arb's="" recent="" revisions="" to="" obd="" ii.="" upon="" the="" effective="" date="" of="" today's="" rulemaking,="" the="" federally="" acceptable="" obd="" ii="" requirements="" will="" be="" those="" in="" mail="" out="" #95-34,="" and="" will="" not="" be="" those="" contained="" in="" any="" potential="" future="" california="" mail="" outs="" pertaining="" to="" obd="" ii.="" barring="" passage="" of="" the="" national="" low="" emission="" vehicle="" regulations="" and="" subsequent="" agreement="" among="" all="" stakeholders="" to="" voluntarily="" sign="" onto="" its="" requirements,="" epa="" can="" see="" no="" reason="" to="" go="" forth="" with="" this="" suggestion.="" epa="" sees="" merit="" in="" undertaking="" efforts="" to="" harmonize="" federal="" obd="" requirements="" with="" the="" california="" obd="" ii="" requirements,="" but="" will="" explore="" other="" potential="" options="" as="" opposed="" to="" that="" suggested="" by="" mr.="" grossman.="" epa="" decision:="" epa="" will="" take="" no="" action="" in="" this="" final="" rulemaking="" to="" accommodate="" this="" commenter's="" suggestion.="" therefore,="" no="" changes="" to="" the="" proposed="" regulatory="" language="" will="" be="" made.="" as="" a="" result,="" through="" the="" 1998="" model="" year,="" epa="" will="" enforce="" obd="" requirements="" against="" either="" the="" california="" obd="" ii="" requirements="" as="" they="" exist="" in="" mail="" out="" #95-34="" or="" the="" federal="" obd="" requirements,="" depending="" on="" the="" set="" of="" requirements="" to="" which="" the="" vehicle="" has="" been="" certified.="" beginning="" with="" the="" 1999="" model="" year,="" full="" compliance="" with="" the="" federal="" obd="" requirements="" will="" be="" required="" for="" all="" vehicles="" covered="" by="" this="" rulemaking.="" this="" will="" assure="" designs="" fully="" meeting="" the="" goals="" of="" the="" federal="" obd="" program,="" not="" only="" for="" preproduction="" certification="" but="" also="" during="" in-use="" operation.="" as="" stated,="" epa="" is="" exploring="" options="" to="" harmonize="" federal="" obd="" requirements="" with="" the="" california="" obd="" ii="" requirements.="" epa="" believes="" that="" effort="" will="" result="" in="" harmonized="" obd="" system="" requirements="" along="" with="" enforcement="" approaches="" and="" regulatory="" philosophies="" consistent="" with="" each="" agency's="" respective="" goals.="" epa="" also="" believes="" that="" effort="" will="" alleviate="" the="" concerns="" expressed="" by="" mr.="" grossman.="" v.="" cost="" effectiveness="" this="" final="" rulemaking="" alters="" an="" existing="" provision="" by="" allowing="" optional="" compliance="" with="" the="" most="" recent="" ``revised''="" california="" obd="" ii="" requirements,="" as="" opposed="" to="" the="" november="" 1992,="" ``original''="" obd="" ii="" requirements,="" for="" the="" purposes="" of="" federal="" obd="" compliance.="" with="" three="" exceptions,="" the="" revised="" obd="" ii="" requirements="" provide="" regulatory="" relief="" relative="" to="" the="" original="" obd="" ii="" requirements.="" those="" exceptions="" are:="" (1)="" more="" stringent="" catalyst="" monitoring="" requirements="" for="" 1998="" model="" year="" low="" emission="" vehicles="" (lev),="" requirements="" that="" would="" not="" apply="" to="" federal="" tier="" i="" vehicles;="" and,="" (2)="" more="" stringent="" evaporative="" emission="" monitoring="" requirements="" for="" 2000="" model="" year="" vehicles,="" requirements="" that="" begin="" beyond="" the="" 1998="" model="" year="" cutoff="" of="" the="" obd="" ii="" compliance="" option;="" and,="" (3)="" more="" stringent="" anti-tampering="" provisions,="" requirements="" intentionally="" excluded="" from="" federal="" obd="" compliance="" demonstration.="" therefore,="" because="" this="" final="" rulemaking="" alters="" an="" existing="" provision,="" and="" that="" alteration="" provides="" regulatory="" relief,="" there="" are="" no="" additional="" costs="" to="" original="" equipment="" manufacturers="" associated="" with="" this="" specific="" final="" action.="" the="" automotive="" aftermarket="" industry="" has="" stated="" that="" the="" provision="" of="" this="" final="" rulemaking="" will="" result="" in="" substantial="" costs="" to="" that="" industry.="" as="" they="" argue="" it,="" these="" costs="" will="" be="" incurred="" because="" the="" anti-tampering="" measures="" required="" under="" the="" california="" obd="" ii="" regulations="" will="" present="" more="" difficulty="" for="" the="" automotive="" aftermarket="" in="" carrying="" out="" their="" business="" of="" reverse="" engineering="" original="" equipment="" manufacturer="" (oem)="" parts="" and="" designing="" replacement="" or="" specialty="" parts.="" however,="" the="" anti-tampering="" measures="" are="" intentionally="" excluded="" from="" federal="" obd="" compliance="" requirements,="" even="" when="" choosing="" the="" optional="" obd="" ii="" compliance="" demonstration.="" therefore,="" oems="" are,="" in="" effect,="" voluntarily="" incorporating="" anti-tampering="" measures="" into="" their="" federal="" vehicles,="" and="" would="" arguably="" do="" so="" absent="" the="" requirement="" under="" the="" california="" obd="" ii="" regulation.="" consequently,="" epa="" cannot="" understand="" how="" the="" provisions="" of="" this="" final="" rulemaking="" are="" responsible="" for="" any="" potential="" increased="" costs="" on="" the="" automotive="" aftermarket,="" outside="" those="" costs="" mandated="" under="" the="" clean="" air="" act="" amendments="" of="" 1990="" which="" require="" all="" 1994="" and="" later="" model="" year="" vehicles="" to="" incorporate="" obd="" systems="" into="" their="" designs.="" the="" costs="" and="" emission="" reductions="" associated="" with="" the="" federal="" obd="" program="" were="" developed="" for="" the="" february="" 19,="" 1993,="" final="" rulemaking.="" the="" change="" being="" made="" today="" does="" not="" affect="" the="" costs="" and="" emission="" reductions="" published="" as="" part="" of="" that="" rulemaking.="" vi.="" administrative="" requirements="" a.="" administrative="" designation="" under="" executive="" order="" 12866="" (58="" fr="" 51735,="" 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.="" b.="" reporting="" and="" recordkeeping="" requirements="" this="" final="" rulemaking="" does="" not="" change="" the="" information="" collection="" requirements="" submitted="" to="" and="" approved="" by="" omb="" in="" association="" with="" the="" obd="" final="" rulemaking="" (58="" fr="" 9468,="" february="" 19,="" 1993;="" and,="" 59="" fr="" 38372,="" july="" 28,="" 1994).="" c.="" impact="" on="" small="" entities="" epa="" has="" determined="" that="" it="" is="" not="" necessary="" to="" prepare="" a="" regulatory="" flexibility="" analysis="" in="" connection="" with="" this="" final="" rule.="" this="" rule="" will="" not="" have="" a="" significant="" adverse="" economic="" impact="" on="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" businesses.="" this="" final="" rulemaking="" will="" provide="" regulatory="" relief="" to="" both="" large="" and="" small="" volume="" automobile="" manufacturers="" by="" maintaining="" consistency="" with="" california="" obd="" ii="" requirements.="" it="" will="" not="" have="" a="" substantial="" impact="" on="" such="" entities.="" this="" final="" rulemaking="" will="" not="" have="" a="" significant="" impact="" on="" businesses="" that="" manufacture,="" rebuild,="" distribute,="" or="" sell="" automotive="" parts,="" nor="" those="" involved="" in="" automotive="" service="" and="" repair,="" as="" the="" revisions="" affect="" only="" requirements="" on="" automobile="" manufacturers.="" [[page="" 45903]]="" d.="" submission="" to="" congress="" and="" the="" general="" accounting="" office="" under="" 5="" u.s.c.="" 801(a)(1)(a)="" as="" added="" 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="" 5="" u.s.c.="" 804(2).="" e.="" 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="" that="" includes="" a="" federal="" mandate="" that="" may="" result="" in="" estimated="" costs="" to="" state,="" local,="" or="" tribal="" governments="" in="" the="" aggregate;="" or="" to="" the="" private="" sector,="" or="" $100="" million="" or="" more.="" under="" section="" 205,="" epa="" must="" select="" the="" most="" cost="" effective="" and="" least="" burdensome="" alternative="" that="" achieves="" the="" objectives="" 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="" or="" uniquely="" impacted="" by="" the="" rule.="" epa="" has="" determined="" that="" the="" final="" approval="" action="" promulgated="" today="" does="" not="" include="" a="" federal="" mandate="" that="" may="" result="" in="" estimated="" costs="" of="" $100="" million="" or="" more="" to="" either="" state,="" local,="" or="" tribal="" governments="" in="" the="" aggregate,="" or="" to="" the="" private="" sector.="" list="" of="" subjects="" in="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 86="" environmental="" protection,="" administrative="" practice="" and="" procedure,="" air="" pollution="" control,="" gasoline,="" motor="" vehicles,="" motor="" vehicle="" pollution,="" reporting="" and="" recordkeeping="" requirements.="" dated:="" august="" 22,="" 1996.="" carol="" m.="" browner,="" administrator.="" for="" the="" reasons="" set="" out="" in="" the="" preamble,="" part="" 86="" of="" title="" 40="" of="" the="" code="" of="" federal="" regulations="" is="" amended="" as="" follows:="" part="" 86--control="" of="" air="" pollution="" from="" new="" and="" in-use="" motor="" vehicles="" and="" new="" and="" in-use="" motor="" vehicle="" engines:="" certification="" and="" test="" procedures="" 1.="" the="" authority="" citation="" for="" part="" 86="" continues="" to="" read="" as="" follows:="" authority:="" 42="" u.s.c.="" 7401="" et="" seq.="" subpart="" a--[amended]="" 2.="" section="" 86.094-17="" is="" amended="" by="" revising="" paragraph="" (j)="" to="" read="" as="" follows:="" sec.="" 86.094-17="" emission="" control="" diagnostic="" system="" for="" 1994="" and="" later="" light-duty="" vehicles="" and="" light-duty="" trucks.="" *="" *="" *="" *="" *="" (j)="" demonstration="" of="" compliance="" with="" california="" obd="" ii="" requirements="" (title="" 13="" california="" code="" sec.="" 1968.1),="" as="" modified="" pursuant="" to="" california="" mail="" out="" #95-34="" (september="" 26,="" 1995),="" shall="" satisfy="" the="" requirements="" of="" this="" section="" through="" the="" 1998="" model="" year="" except="" that="" compliance="" with="" title="" 13="" california="" code="" sec.="" 1968.1(d),="" pertaining="" to="" tampering="" protection,="" is="" not="" required="" to="" satisfy="" the="" requirements="" of="" this="" section.="" *="" *="" *="" *="" *="" [fr="" doc.="" 96-21946="" filed="" 8-29-96;="" 8:45="" am]="" billing="" code="" 6560-50-p="">