Basis for Failure or Rejection of IM Readiness SMOG EPA Guideline to be used in conjunction with Final Rule of the Clean Air Act!
Unless otherwise noted in this guidance, a vehicle should be failed for any of the
following five reasons, with the exception of the last
(for which the appropriate action is rejection):
11
1) It is a 1996 or newer vehicle and the data link connector (DLC) is missing, has
been tampered
12 with, or is otherwise inoperable. (Action: Failure)
2) The MIL does not illuminate at all when the ignition key is turned to the
position. The MIL should illuminate (on some vehicles, only for a brief period of
time) when the ignition key is turned to the position. (Action: Failure)
3) If the MIL illuminates continuously or flashes after the engine has been started,
even if no fault codes are present, since this could indicate a serial data link
11States should be aware that some vehicles have atypical OBD configurations, and should take steps to avoid unfairly
penalizing motorists. For example, states may incorrectly suspect motorist tampering for those vehicles that are manufactured
with the DLC in a hard-to-find location. EPA is working with manufacturers, operating OBD-I/M programs, and Weber State
University to develop an online clearinghouse of OBD-related information useful to state I/M programs and other stakeholders,
including all OBD-related Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs) from the manufacturers and all relevant updates. See Appendices
B through D for more information on vehicles with atypical OBD system issues.
12
Tampering is considered to be any modification of the vehicle that deviates from the certified configuration of the
vehicle, particularly if such modification has the practical effect of making the vehicle untestable (by, for example, making the
DLC inaccessible) or otherwise constitutes an attempt to evade the program (by, for example, using illegal aftermarket devices
designed to circumvent the OBD computer or provide false results during an OBD-I/M check). Under this definition, moving a
DLC as part of collision repairs would not necessarily constitute tampering -- provided the DLC was not hidden or rendered
otherwise inaccessible as a result of being moved.
failure.
13 (Action: Failure)
4) Any are present and the MIL status, as indicated by the scan tool, is
commanded on, regardless of whether or not the MIL is actually illuminated.
Do not fail the vehicle if are present and the MIL status, as indicated by
the scan tool, is off, because such non-MIL-triggering are considered
“pending” and frequently self clear without requiring repair of the vehicle. MIL
command status must be determined with the engine running. (Action: Failure)
5) The number of OBD system monitors showing a “not ready” status exceeds the
number allowed for the model year in question. (Action: Rejection)
14
Table 1 below lists the possible test outcomes in tabular form.
Table 1 – Possible OBD-I/M Outcomes
Vehicle Passes If: * Bulb check OK and
* MIL not lit while engine running and
* MIL not commanded on for any and
* All required readiness codes are set
Vehicle Fails If: * Bulb check not OK and/or
* MIL lit while engine running and/or
* MIL commanded on for any and/or
* DLC missing, tampered, or inoperable
Vehicle Rejected If: * More unset readiness codes found than allowed based on MY and/or
* DLC cannot be located or is inaccessible
13
States should be aware that some vehicles will illuminate a MIL when a scan tool is connected and the vehicle is still
in the “key on, engine off” condition. In some cases, the scan tool will indicate that the MIL is, in fact, commanded on -- even
though no may be present. EPA has found that these vehicles will usually extinguish the MIL and remove the “MIL
commanded on” indicator when the engine is started. To avoid falsely failing vehicles, therefore, it is important that the
electronic portion of the OBD-I/M check be conducted only with the vehicle in the “key on, engine running” condition (as
indicated in the test procedure described above).
14
Although earlier requirements stipulated that OBD-equipped vehicles be rejected from further testing if any monitor
was “not ready,” EPA has revised these readiness criteria to allow states to not reject MY 1996-2000 vehicles with two or fewer
unset readiness codes, or MY 2001 and newer vehicles with no more than one unset readiness code. The complete MIL check
and scan should still be run in all cases, however, and the vehicle should still be failed if one or more are set and the MIL
is commanded on. The vehicle should also continue to be rejected if the OBD computer does not set readiness codes for 3 or
more monitors on MY 1996-2000 vehicles, or two or more monitors on MY 2001 and newer vehicles. Readiness codes in
general, and the specific codes and conditions covered by the April 5, 2001 amendments will be discussed in more detail under a
separate section of this guidance.
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/vehicleengine-penalty-policy_0.pdf
The fines for each occurrence are staggering!
Think! ......Attention tuning dealers of any tuner, that engage in these type of modifications for the public streets.
Ponder this?
What would happen if a simple log file could be used to determine how many cars you programmed from your own equipment, and then be used to show your egregious act?
If a Gross of $2,000,000 taken in allegedly / ( Est. Flashes @ $250 a flash ) = 8,000 flashes x2 to average the two fines added together = 16,000 x $28,000 per Est. Violation = $448,000,000
That's a pretty expensive penalty!
Violations of the emission control tampering prohibition under Section 203(a)(3)(A) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
5 7522(a)(3)(A); and Violations of the emission control defeat device prohibition under Section 203(a)(3)(B) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
5 7522(a)(3)(B). Under Section 205(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
8 7524(a), the maximum penalty for violations of the vehicle and engine requirements under Title I1 of the Act is $25,000 per vehicle or engine, with two exceptions. The maximum penalty for violations of the tampering prohibition when committed by any person other than a manufacturer is $2,500 per vehicle, and the maximum penalty for violations of the defeat device prohibition is $2,500 per device. These maximum penalty amounts were increased from $25,000 to $32,500 and from $2,500 to $2,750 for violations occurring after March 15,2004, through January 12,2009, and to $37,500 and $3,750 for violations occurring thereafter (see Civil Monetarv Penalty Inflation Ad-iustment
m, 69 Fed. Reg. 7 12
1 (Feb. 13,2004) and Civil Monetarv Penalty Inflation Adiustment Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 75340 (Dec. 11,2008)). Section 205(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
9 7524(b) provides the factors that a court should take into account when determining the amount of any penalty in a judicial action under Title I1 of the Act: In determining the amount of any civil penalty to be assessed [in a civil judicial action] the court shall take into account the gravity of the violation, the economic benefit or savings (if any) resulting from the violation, the size of the violator's business, the violator's history of compliance with [Title I1 of the Act], action taken to remedy the violation, the effect of the penalty on the violator's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require. Section 205(c)(2) specifies that these same factors should be taken into account in an administrative penalty assessment for violation of requirements under Title I1 of the Act. Section 205(c)(l) of the Act specifies that, in lieu of referring a case to the Department of Justice to commence a civil action in district court, EPA may enforce the violation through an administrative penalty assessment, provided the penalty amount is less than $200,000, unless EPA and the Department of Justice agree that a matter with a larger penalty is appropriate for administrative penalty assessment. This penalty cap on administrative actions was increased to $295,000 under the 2008 Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule.