Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 24429

Office, 4155 E. Clay St., Vicksburg,

Mississippi 39180–3435.

* * * * *

(g) Fairway. A clear channel not less

than 175 feet wide as established by the

District Engineer shall be left open at all

times to permit free and unobstructed

navigation by all types of vessels.

Dated: March 25, 1998.

Approved:

Robert W. Burkhardt,

Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Executive

Director of Civil Works.

[FR Doc. 98–11689 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–92–M

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 crossreferenced 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:

Category Examples of regulated 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
24430 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 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
24432 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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-forprofit 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 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:

§ 51.351 Enhanced I/M performance

standard.

* * * * *

(c) On-board diagnostics (OBD). The

performance standard shall include

inspection of all 1996 and later lightduty 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 § 51.357.

* * * * *

3. Section 51.352 is amended by

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 51.352 Basic I/M performance standard.

* * * * *

(c) On-board diagnostics (OBD). The

performance standard shall include

inspection of all 1996 and later lightduty 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 § 51.357.

* * * * *

4. Section 51.357 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 51.357 Test procedures and standards.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) On-board diagnostics test

standards. Vehicles shall fail the onboard 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:

§ 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).

§ 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:

§ 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
24434 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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:

§ 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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ059–0005; FRL–6004–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Arizona State

Implementation Plan Revision,

Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to

approve a revision to the Arizona State

Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision

concerns Maricopa County’s Ordinance

P–7, Maricopa County Trip Reduction

Ordinance. This approval action will

incorporate this ordinance into the

federally-approved SIP. The intended

effect of approving this ordinance is to

reduce emissions of volatile organic

compounds, nitrogen oxides, carbon

monoxide, and particulate matter by

reducing the number of single-occupantvehicle commute trips in the Phoenix,

Arizona, metropolitan area. EPA is

finalizing the approval of this revision

into the Arizona SIP under provisions of

the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, SIPs for national primary

and secondary ambient air quality

standards and plan requirements for

nonattainment areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision

and supporting information are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region IX office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rule

revisions are available for inspection at

the following location: Office of Air

Planning (AIR–2), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frances Wicker, Office of Air Planning,

AIR–2, Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415)

744–1248.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On December 9, 1997 at 62 FR 64794,

EPA proposed to approve Maricopa

County’s Ordinance P–7, Maricopa

County Trip Reduction Ordinance

which was revised by the Maricopa

County, Arizona, Board of Supervisors

on May 26, 1994 and submitted as a SIP

revision to EPA by the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

on August 31, 1995. A discussion of the

ordinance and EPA’s proposed approval

action can be found in the notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) cited

above.

EPA has evaluated this ordinance for

consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations and EPA’s

interpretation of these requirements as

expressed in the various Agency policy

guidance documents referenced in the

NPRM. EPA has found that the

ordinance meets the applicable EPA

requirements.

II. Public Comments

No comments were received on the

proposed approval during the 30-day

public comment period that was

provided in 62 FR 64794.

III. EPA Action

EPA is approving the above submitted

ordinance for inclusion into the

federally-approved Arizona SIP. EPA is

approving the submittal under section

110(k)(3) as meeting the requirements of

section 110(a) and Part D of the CAA.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

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 private sector, of $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