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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 24435

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

D. 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).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 6, 1998.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Carbon monoxide, Particulate matter,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

Arizona was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: March 20, 1998.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart D—Arizona

2. Section 52.120 by adding paragraph

(c)(82)(i)(E) to read as follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(82) * * *

(i) * * *

(E) Maricopa County.

(1) Ordinance P–7, Maricopa County

Trip Reduction Ordinance, adopted May

26, 1994.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–11759 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL–5980–9]

Technical Amendments to Approval

and Promulgation of Implementation

Plans; Minnesota; Correction of

Effective Date Under Congressional

Review Act (CRA)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; correction of

effective date under CRA.

SUMMARY: On July 22, 1997 (62 FR

39120), the Environmental Protection

Agency published in the Federal

Register a direct final rule approving a

revision to the Minnesota State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Saint

Paul particulate matter (PM)

nonattainment area located in Ramsey

County, Minnesota, which established

an effective date of September 22, 1997.

This document corrects the effective

date of the rule to May 4, 1998 to be

consistent with sections 801 and 808 of

the Congressional Review Act (CRA),

enacted as part of the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 and 808.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

May 4, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Eagles, Office of Air at (202) 260–

5585.

Supplementary Information:

I. Background

Section 801 of the CRA precludes a

rule from taking effect until the agency

promulgating the rule submits a rule

report, which includes a copy of the

rule, to each House of Congress and to

the Comptroller General of the General

Accounting Office (GAO). EPA recently

discovered that it had inadvertently

failed to submit the above rule as

required; thus, although the rule was

promulgated on the date stated in the

July 22, 1997, Federal Register

document, by operation of law, the rule

did not take effect on September 22,

1997, as stated therein. Now that EPA

has discovered its error, the rule has

been submitted to both Houses of

Congress and the GAO. This document

amends the effective date of the rule

consistent with the provisions of the

CRA.

Section 553 of the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),

provides that, when an agency for good

cause finds that notice and public

procedure are impracticable,

unnecessary or contrary to the public

interest, an agency may issue a rule

without providing notice and an

opportunity for public comment. EPA

has determined that there is good cause

for making today’s rule final without

prior proposal and opportunity for

comment because EPA merely is

correcting the effective date of the

promulgated rule to be consistent with

the congressional review requirements

of the Congressional Review Act as a

matter of law and has no discretion in

this matter. Thus, notice and public

procedure are unnecessary. The Agency

finds that this constitutes good cause

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Moreover,

since today’s action does not create any

new regulatory requirements and

affected parties have known of the

underlying rule since July 22, 1997, EPA

finds that good cause exists to provide

for an immediate effective date pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) and 808(2).

II. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

is therefore not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. In

addition, this action does not impose

any enforceable duty or contain any

unfunded mandate as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–4), or require prior

consultation with State officials as

specified by Executive Order 12875 (58

FR 58093, October 28, 1993), or involve

special consideration of environmental