Proposed Rule2025-22594
Air Plan Disapproval; Ohio; E-Check Attestation Provisions
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 11, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to disapprove a revision to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on July 9, 2025, by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). The revision, which Ohio EPA submitted pursuant to Ohio Amended Substitute House Bill 54 ("E-Check Ease Act"), includes provisions that would create an alternative to state-run mandatory on- board diagnostic (OBD) inspections with a self-attestation program that allows motorists to self-attest that their vehicles comply with emissions requirements. This approach is inconsistent with statutory and regulatory requirements for Enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/ M) programs under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and would interfere with attainment and reasonable further progress toward the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 236 (Thursday, December 11, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 236 (Thursday, December 11, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57411-57414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-22594]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2025-1048; FRL-13020-01-R5]
Air Plan Disapproval; Ohio; E-Check Attestation Provisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
disapprove a revision to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted on July 9, 2025, by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA). The revision, which Ohio EPA submitted pursuant to Ohio
Amended Substitute House Bill 54 (``E-Check Ease Act''), includes
provisions that would create an alternative to state-run mandatory on-
board diagnostic (OBD) inspections with a self-attestation program that
allows motorists to self-attest that their vehicles comply with
emissions requirements. This approach is inconsistent with statutory
and regulatory requirements for Enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/
M) programs under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and would interfere with
attainment and reasonable further progress toward the 2015 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 12, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2025-1048 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or via email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f89499969f959996d695919b90999d94b89d8899d69f978e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2a464b444d474b4404474349424b4f466a4f5a4b044d455c">[email protected]</span></a>. For comments submitted at <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's
docket at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> any information you consider to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary Business
Information (PBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI,
PBI, or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Air and
Radiation Division (AR18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6061,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fb9a989e8d9e9f94d59d899a959892889894bb9e8b9ad59c948d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2a4b494f5c4f4e45044c584b4449435949456a4f5a4b044d455c">[email protected]</span></a>. The EPA Region 5 office is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
I. Background
The CAA establishes a framework for controlling emissions of ozone
precursors in areas that do not attain the NAAQS. Section 182 of the
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7511a) requires that certain ozone nonattainment areas
implement vehicle I/M programs to identify and repair high-emitting
vehicles operating in the nonattainment area. Nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate must adopt at least a ``Basic'' I/M program (CAA
section 182(b)(4)), and areas classified as Serious or above must adopt
an ``Enhanced'' I/M program (CAA section 182(c)(3)). Pursuant to the
CAA and EPA's corresponding implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51
subpart S, both Basic and Enhanced I/M programs are subject to certain
performance standards and program administration requirements,
including mandatory OBD vehicle inspections, corrective action and
retesting for vehicles that fail inspection, and enforceable program
mechanisms to ensure compliance.
The Cleveland-Akron-Lorain metropolitan area in northeast Ohio is
[[Page 57412]]
designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The area is
classified as a Serious ozone nonattainment area effective January 16,
2025 (89 FR 101901, December 17, 2024). As a result of its
classification, Ohio is currently required to implement an Enhanced I/M
program meeting all statutory and regulatory requirements for Serious
areas.
Ohio implements ``E-Check'', its SIP-approved vehicle I/M program,
in the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain metropolitan area.\1\ E-Check has long
been relied upon in Ohio's SIP to provide emission reductions necessary
for both reasonable further progress (RFP) and attainment
demonstrations for multiple ozone standards. The program consists of a
hybrid network that combines state-contracted centralized inspection
facilities with a number of decentralized service centers where
approximately 880,000 vehicles annually with a gross vehicle weight
rating of up to 10,000 pounds undergo OBD-based testing consistent with
EPA's I/M regulations at 40 CFR part 51, subpart S. EPA fully approved
Ohio's I/M program on April 4, 1995, 60 FR 16989, and approved
revisions to the program on January 6, 1997, 62 FR 646.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under Ohio's E-Check program, Ohio EPA is required to ensure
emissions testing is performed in Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain,
Medina, Portage, and Summit counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2025, the Ohio General Assembly enacted the ``E-Check Ease
Act.'' The E-Check Ease Act includes a provision incorporated into Ohio
Revised Code (ORC) 3704.14(C)(2) that fundamentally alters the State's
I/M framework. The law creates an alternative compliance pathway under
which motorists may obtain an ``alternative emissions certificate'' by
signing a self- attestation form declaring, ``to the best of their
knowledge,'' that their vehicle complies with State and Federal
emission requirements. Unlike the current E-Check program, this pathway
does not involve the direct inspection of the OBD system to check for
the proper functioning of the vehicle's emissions control systems and
to ensure repairs when needed. It also provides no civil or criminal
penalties for submitting a false attestation. The only consequence is
rejection of the self-attestation form and a requirement to resubmit it
or undergo a standard inspection.
The E-Check Ease Act also provides that the addition of the
alternative emissions certification to Ohio's E-Check program is not
effective until EPA approves a SIP revision submitted by Ohio EPA
incorporating this modification of Ohio's I/M program. If EPA approves
the modification of Ohio's I/M program, Ohio EPA would be required to
amend their regulations governing the E-Check program contained in Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-26 to include these provisions and
submit the amended regulations to EPA as a revision to Ohio's OAC 3745-
26 SIP-approved regulations.
Accordingly, Ohio EPA developed and submitted a SIP revision on
July 9, 2025, requesting EPA approval of the self-attestation option as
part of the State's federally enforceable I/M program. Ohio's
submission included a demonstration under CAA section 110(l), asserting
that the revision would not interfere with attainment or reasonable
further progress toward the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Ohio's SIP submission and
associated supporting documents are available in the docket for this
action, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2025-
1048.
II. EPA's Evaluation of Ohio's SIP Revision
EPA has carefully reviewed Ohio's July 9, 2025, SIP submission
requesting approval of an alternative emissions certification process
within Ohio's existing I/M program considering the requirements of the
CAA, EPA's implementing regulations, and longstanding program guidance.
Ohio's July 9, 2025, SIP submission included a copy of the E-Check Ease
Act that was signed into law on March 31, 2025. In support of the SIP
revision, Ohio also included a demonstration under section 110(l) of
the CAA, which prohibits approval of SIP revisions that interfere with
attainment or reasonable further progress toward the NAAQS. Ohio's
analysis assumed that 100 percent of eligible motorists could use the
self-attestation option within one year of implementation.
In addition, Ohio EPA provided public notice and an opportunity to
comment on the SIP revision and associated CAA section 110(l)
demonstration. The State received over 650 comments. Most commenters
requested elimination of the E-Check program altogether, while others
either supported the self-attestation option as a modernization or
opposed it as ineffective and detrimental to air quality. Ohio EPA
responded to comments and submitted the public notice and response to
comments as part of the SIP submittal.
Based on our evaluation, EPA proposes to disapprove the revision
because it is inconsistent with Enhanced I/M statutory requirements,
EPA's I/M regulations at 40 CFR part 51, subpart S, and the anti-
backsliding provision of CAA section 110(l).
A. Elimination of Required OBD Inspections
Section 182(c)(3)(C)(vii) of the CAA explicitly requires Enhanced
I/M programs to include ``inspection of emission control diagnostic
systems.'' Similarly, CAA section 202(m)(3) requires I/M program SIPs
to ``provide for inspection of onboard diagnostic systems.'' EPA's I/M
regulations at 40 CFR 51.373(g)-(h) further mandate that OBD checks be
implemented in all Enhanced I/M areas. The Ohio SIP revision would
offer an alternative to OBD inspections with self-attestation by the
vehicle owner or lessee, which is not a permissible test method in the
CAA or EPA's I/M regulations. The absence of direct inspection of the
motor vehicle removes a critical enforcement mechanism, prevents the
identification and effectuation of much-needed vehicle emissions
control systems repairs that would benefit air quality, and undermines
the performance standard for Enhanced I/M required by the CAA and EPA's
I/M regulations.
B. Lack of Proof of Corrective Action
The CAA requires that vehicles failing inspection must demonstrate
proof of corrective action prior to retesting (CAA section
182(a)(2)(B)). Under Ohio's proposal, a motorist whose self-attestation
is rejected may simply amend and resubmit without providing evidence
that repairs were made. This creates a mechanism that is inconsistent
with statutory intent and undermines the repair and compliance
assurance functions that are fundamental elements of I/M programs.
C. Lack of Effective Enforcement Provisions
Effective program administration is a core element of Enhanced I/M.
The CAA requires that States employ management and enforcement features
necessary to ensure program compliance (CAA section 182(a)(2)(B),
182(c)(3)(B)). EPA regulations require enforceable and meaningful
penalties for noncompliance, such as for cases of registration fraud
(40 CFR 51.361(a)(10)). However, Ohio's legislation states that no
penalty shall apply to a person who the Ohio EPA director has
determined to have falsified a self-attestation form, other than the
issuance of a notice directing the person to amend and resubmit the
attestation. This minimal consequence fails to deter
[[Page 57413]]
fraud and does not meet statutory and regulatory requirements for
effective enforcement.
D. Interference With Attainment and RFP
CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving SIP revisions that
interfere with attainment of or reasonable further progress towards the
NAAQS. As mentioned above, Ohio included a section 110(l) analysis as
Attachment B in its July 9, 2025, SIP submittal. This analysis shows
that in 2023, 880,832 vehicles were tested, with 55,789 (6.6%) failing
their initial inspection. Ohio's analysis did not estimate the impact
to ozone precursor and other pollutant emissions as the result of
modifications to the I/M program.
The purpose of I/M programs is not only to identify high-emitting
vehicles, but also to ensure that effective repairs have been made. A
self-attestation program does not provide any compliance assurance for
repairs on these high-emitting vehicles. If self-attestation were to
replace CAA-mandated test methods, high-emitting vehicles such as the
approximately 55,000 vehicles that failed initial inspection in 2023
could continue operating unrepaired.
Another significant benefit of an OBD I/M test program is the
reduction of emissions as the result of pre-inspection repairs. Since
the OBD system allows motorists to see that repairs are necessary via a
lit Check Engine light and that their vehicle would fail an OBD test
inspection, many motorists will opt to have their vehicles repaired
prior to the required periodic inspection to avoid the inconvenience of
a failed test and a return trip for a retest. Thus, vehicles that fail
an initial I/M test represent a portion of the vehicles that have their
emissions reduced as the result of an OBD I/M program that ensures
repairs for compliance. However, there is no incentive in a self-
attestation program for motorists to get pre-inspection repairs, so a
self-attestation program would not be expected to get the emission
reduction benefits from pre-inspection repairs.
If Ohio's proposed modification to its E-Check program were to be
approved, tens of thousands of vehicles with malfunctioning emission
controls could remain in service, increasing ozone precursor emissions
and jeopardizing attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain area. This strongly suggests interference with both
attainment and reasonable further progress.
E. Lack of Statutory Authority for Self-Certification
While the CAA allows States flexibility in program design (e.g.,
frequency of testing, centralized vs. decentralized networks,
exemptions for certain newer model years), the CAA and EPA's
corresponding implementing I/M regulations require actual inspection
methods to identify high-emitting vehicles. EPA has previously approved
flexibilities such as remote OBD testing, clean screening using on-road
sensing, and kiosks (66 FR 18156, April 5, 2001; 72 FR 14235, March 27,
2007). However, no provision of the CAA authorizes wholesale
replacement of inspections with self-attestation. As mentioned above in
section II.A., the CAA is explicit that the ``inspection of onboard
diagnostic systems'' is a required element of I/M programs.\2\ Thus,
Ohio's proposed self-attestation approach is not permissible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CAA section 202(m)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that, while the CAA and EPA's I/M regulations require
actual inspection of emission control systems, States retain
significant flexibility in how these requirements are implemented. For
example, Ohio and other States have successfully incorporated options
such as:
--Vehicle model year exemptions (e.g., exempting very new vehicles,
which are less likely to have emission control failures, or very old
vehicles not equipped with OBD).
--Modified inspection frequencies (annual versus biennial testing).
--Different inspection network types (centralized test-only facilities
versus decentralized networks of service stations).
--Remote OBD testing through telematics, which allows certain vehicles
to transmit OBD information electronically without visiting a station.
--Self-service kiosks or mobile testing units, which can make testing
more convenient and less intrusive for motorists.
--``Clean screening'' programs using on-road remote sensing devices,
which allow low-emitting vehicles to be exempted from scheduled testing
based on demonstrated real-world performance.
Where these flexibilities have been incorporated, States have
generally found that public perception of I/M programs is more
positive, as these approaches are seen as modernized, less burdensome,
and less intrusive for motorists while still ensuring compliance with
statutory requirements. Importantly, all of these options retain an
objective inspection mechanism consistent with Clean Air Act
requirements and EPA's implementing regulations. In contrast, Ohio's
proposed self-attestation provision would eliminate the core
requirement for inspection of OBD systems and therefore cannot be
considered a permissible flexibility.
III. What action is EPA taking?
Because the E-Check Ease Act eliminates mandatory OBD testing,
fails to require proof of corrective action for failing vehicles, and
lacks enforceable penalties for falsification, EPA determines the SIP
revision is inconsistent with CAA requirements for Enhanced I/M
programs (sections 182(c)(3) and 202(m)(3)), EPA's I/M regulations at
40 CFR part 51, subpart S, and the anti-backsliding provisions of
section 110(l). Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove Ohio's July
9, 2025, SIP revision. If finalized, Ohio must continue implementing
its existing Enhanced I/M program or submit a new SIP revision that
complies with CAA and regulatory requirements.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 14192
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866;
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This action will not impose any requirements on
small entities. This action is disapproving SIP provisions that are
inconsistent with CAA requirements for Enhanced I/M programs (sections
182(c)(3) and 202(m)(3)), EPA's I/M regulations at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart S, and the anti-backsliding provisions of section 110(l).
[[Page 57414]]
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This rule does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
rule.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not 3(f)(1) significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children
because it disapproves revisions to a State program that are
inconsistent with statutory and regulatory requirements for vehicle
inspection and maintenance programs under the CAA and would interfere
with attainment and reasonable further progress toward the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: November 20, 2025.
Cheryl Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2025-22594 Filed 12-10-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 11, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.