`[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 85 (Monday, May 4, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24429-24434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11751]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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`