49150 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

the Customs Regulations to clarify and

update the legal requirements and

procedures that apply for purposes of

obtaining duty-free treatment on articles

imported from insular possessions of

the United States other than Puerto

Rico. That final rule document provided

for an October 3, 1997, effective date for

the regulatory amendments contained

therein.

The amendments in T.D. 97–75

included an update of the list of

information collection approvals under

the Paperwork Reduction Act contained

in § 178.2 of the Customs Regulations

(19 CFR 178.2). Although the discussion

of the Paperwork Reduction Act in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of

T.D. 97–75 correctly set forth the control

number assigned by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) as

1515–0200, the amendment to § 178.2

incorrectly listed the OMB control

number as 1515–0055. This document

corrects this error.

Correction to the Final Regulations

On page 46443, in the table under

§ 178.2, in the column headed ‘‘OMB

control number’’, the entry ‘‘1515–

0055’’ is corrected to read ‘‘1515–0200’’.

Dated: September 11, 1997.

Harold M. Singer,

Chief, Regulations Branch.

[FR Doc. 97–24953 Filed 9–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA–056–5023; FRL–5895–6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Commonwealth of Virginia; Interim

Final Determination for the Enhanced

Motor Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

SUMMARY: Elsewhere in today’s Federal

Register, EPA has published a proposed

rule to amend the Inspection/

Maintenance (I/M) Program

Requirements (the I/M rule). That

document proposes, in part, revisions to

the Motor Vehicle I/M requirements by

replacing the I/M rule requirement that

the tailpipe portion of the mandatory

program evaluation be performed using

only an IM240 or equivalent massemission transient test with a

requirement that states use a sound

evaluation methodology capable of

providing accurate information about

the overall effectiveness of an I/M

program. In addition, the proposal

would amend the conditions relating to

the program evaluation testing

requirements that were part of the

conditional interim approval actions

taken on the I/M State Implementation

Plans (SIPs) for the Commonwealths of

Pennsylvania and Virginia and the State

of Delaware, consistent with the

proposed rule change. Based on the

proposed rule and for the reasons

discussed below, EPA is making an

interim final determination by this

action that the commitment dates

concerning the major deficiencies in

Virginia’s I/M SIP should be extended

out to June 16, 1998. The June 16, 1998

date is one year from the effective date

of the final conditional interim approval

of the I/M program, the outside date

allowed under the Clean Air Act (CAA)

for conditional approvals. Although this

action is effective upon publication,

EPA will take comment on whether this

interim final determination should

remain in place. In addition, this action

will amend the commitment dates

pertaining to the major deficiencies

cited in the rulemaking section of the

final conditional interim approval for

the Commonwealth of Virginia’s I/M

program.

DATES: Effective Date: September 19,

1997. Comment Date: October 20, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone/CO &

Mobile Sources Section, Mailcode

3AT21, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107. Copies of the documents relevant

to this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey M. Boylan,(215) 566–2094, at the

EPA Region III office or via e-mail at

boylan.jeffrey@ epamail.epa.gov. While

information may be requested via email, comments must be submitted in

writing to the above Region III address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 6, 1996, (61 FR 57343)

EPA proposed conditional interim

approval of the Northern Virginia

Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance

program. In response to that proposal,

the DEQ submitted a letter dated

December 4, 1996, to EPA with a

commitment to correct all of the major

deficiencies cited in the proposal by

September 15, 1997. After receiving this

commitment letter, EPA proceeded with

final rulemaking on the Virginia I/M

program and published an interim final

rule on May 15, 1997 (62 FR 2674). The

three major deficiencies conditioned in

the final rulemaking tasked Virginia to

accomplish the following by September

15, 1997: (a) Perform and submit the

new modeling demonstration

illustrating how its program will meet

the enhanced performance standard; (b)

submit as a SIP amendment a final

Virginia I/M regulation which requires a

yearly mass-emission transient test

based evaluation on 0.1% of the subject

fleet; and (c) adopt and submit a final

Virginia I/M regulation which requires

and specifies detailed approvable test

procedures and equipment

specifications for all the evaporative and

exhaust tests used in the enhanced I/M

program.

EPA is proposing elsewhere in today’s

Federal Register, to further revise the

rule related to state air quality

implementation plans for Motor Vehicle

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)

programs (40 CFR part 51, subpart S)

(hereafter referred to as the I/M rule; see

57 FR 52950) to provide greater

flexibility to states in conducting

program evaluation. That proposed

rulemaking proposes to: (1) Amend the

I/M program evaluation requirements at

40 CFR 51.353(c) to remove the current

requirement that the tailpipe portion of

the program evaluation can be

performed only by conducting mass

emission transient testing (METT), (2)

create a new evaluation requirement at

40 CFR 51.353(c) that will instead

require states to conduct program

evaluation testing using a sound

evaluation methodology capable of

providing accurate information about

I/M program effectiveness, such

evaluation to begin no later than

November 30, 1998, (3) amend the

requirement that the program evaluation

tests be conducted ‘‘at the time initial

test is due’’ to clarify that states are not

barred from using alternative sample

gathering methods like roadside

pullovers by defining ‘‘the time of initial

test’’ as any time prior to repairs during

the inspection cycle under

consideration, (4) delete the current

conditions on Pennsylvania’s and

Virginia’s conditional interim I/M

approvals and Delaware’s conditional

approval (40 CFR part 52, subpart NN,

§ 52.2026(a)(2), 40 CFR part 52, subpart

V, § 52.2450(b)(2), and 40 CFR part 52,

subpart I, § 52.424(b), respectively) that

require submission of program
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 49151

1As previously noted, however, by this action

EPA is providing the public with a chance to

comment on EPA’s determination after the effective

date and EPA will consider any comments received

in determining whether to reverse such action.

evaluation regulations under the

existing I/M rule, and (5) impose a new

condition on Pennsylvania’s, Virginia’s,

and Delaware’s I/M approvals that will

require them to submit I/M regulations

which include a requirement to perform

a program evaluation using a sound

evaluation methodology meeting the

amended requirements of 40 CFR

51.353(c) by November 30, 1998, if

commitments are submitted by October

15, 1997 to submit such regulations

within such time frame.

Since today’s proposed amendments

broaden the program evaluation

requirement to include other sound

evaluation methodologies, it is also

appropriate to propose withdrawing

these METT-based program evaluation

conditions on the interim approval

notice for Virginia. In place of these

original conditions, EPA proposes to

impose new conditions that will require

the commonwealths instead to submit

program evaluation regulations that

meet the more flexible requirements of

the amended 40 CFR 51.353(c). Virginia

must submit a commitment by October

15, 1997, to adopt and submit the

required evaluation methodology

requirements by November 30, 1998 in

order to support EPA’s imposition of the

new proposed conditions under section

110(k)(4) of the Act. However, Virginia’s

final conditional interim approval

requires the Commonwealth to meet its

METT-based program evaluation

condition before EPA will be able to

finalize today’s proposed action. The

current deadline for Virginia’s meeting

this condition is September 15, 1997,

which is based upon a commitment

made by the Commonwealth prior to

EPA’s decision to revise the program

evaluation requirement. The September

15, 1997 date does not reflect the full

twelve month period available under

section 110(k)(4) of the statute for

meeting conditions which, in the case of

Virginia, would be June 16, 1998.

Virginia has recently committed to

submit program evaluation provisions

meeting the existing I/M rule by June

16, 1998 should EPA fail to take final

action on today’s proposal. For these

reasons, EPA is taking an interim final

action to extend the deadline for

Virginia’s existing program evaluation

condition to June 16, 1998. EPA believes

it is appropriate to take such action

without prior public notice and

comment because it would be contrary

to the public interest to require Virginia

to comply with a condition based on a

requirement that EPA has proposed to

amend, and because Virginia’s recent

commitment is consistent with the

statute.

On September 2, 1997, the DEQ

submitted a recommitment letter

officially requesting that the EPA extend

all the commitment dates relevant to the

major deficiencies as cited in the

December 4, 1996 letter to June 16,

1998. This date represents a time frame

one year from the effective date of the

final conditional interim approval of

Virginia’s I/M program published on

May 15, 1997. In light of the delay in the

program evaluation, occasioned by

EPA’s proposal, EPA believes that it is

appropriate to extend all the

commitment dates to June 16, 1998,

consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the

CAA.

II. EPA Action

Based on the proposed rule to amend

the I/M Program Requirements set forth

in today’s Federal Register and to

properly satisfy the conditions in its

final interim conditional approval, DEQ

submitted a recommitment officially

requesting that the September 15, 1997

deadline to remedy the major

deficiencies of the I/M program be

extended to June 16, 1998. EPA believes

that the Commonwealth of Virginia is

justified in its request. Furthermore,

prior to the time EPA can take final

action on today’s proposed rule to

amend the I/M rule, Virginia would be

required to comply with a condition in

the final I/M rulemaking, which EPA

has proposed to alter. For all the above

reasons, EPA is taking this interim final

action finding that it is appropriate to

allow the Commonwealth of Virginia to

remedy all the major deficiencies within

12 months of the effective date of the

I/M interim final rule. In addition, this

action will amend the commitment

dates pertaining to the major

deficiencies cited in the rulemaking

section of the final conditional interim

approval for the Commonwealth of

Virginia’s I/M program.

Today EPA is also providing the

public with an opportunity to comment

on this interim final action. If based on

any comments on this action EPA

determines that this final action was

inappropriate EPA will take further

action to withdraw this interim final

action, thereby reimposing the

September 15, 1997 deadline for

meeting the commitments. The final

conditional interim approval would

then convert to a disapproval based on

the State’s failure to timely comply with

the conditions.

III. Administrative Requirements

In order to remedy conditions of their

I/M program for the reasons described

above, EPA has determined that the

Commonwealth of Virginia is justified

in its extension request and that the

State is being afforded a time frame

which is no longer than other States

with pending final conditional

approvals. Therefore, EPA is invoking

the good clause exception under the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in

not providing an opportunity for

comment before this action takes effect.1

The EPA believes that notice-andcomment rulemaking before the

effective date of this action is

impracticable and contrary to the public

interest as EPA would be requiring

Virginia to comply with the condition in

question based on a requirement that

EPA has proposed to amend. Moreover

the section 110(k)(4) of the CAA allows

states up to one year after the date of

approval of a SIP revision to adopt

specific enforceable measures to meet

its commitments. Therefore, EPA

believes it is necessary to use the

interim final rulemaking process to

extend the commitment dates from

September 15, 1997 to June 16, 1998

while EPA completes its rulemaking

processes on Virginia’s I/M program and

on the proposed I/M rule change.

Executive Order 12866

This action has been delegated to the

Regional Administrator for decisionmaking and signature. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from

E.O. 12866 review.

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 subject to notice and comment

procedure 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-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

Because this action is not subject to

prior notice and comment requirements

(see above), it is not subject to RFA. In

any event, today’s action merely extends

the commitment dates to June 16, 1998

for the Commonwealth of Virginia to

satisfy the major deficiency conditions

already cited in I/M final conditional

interim rule. Therefore, this action will

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.
49152 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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

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.

Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This interim

final determination regarding the

Commonwealth of Virginia I/M SIP is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

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 November 18,

1997.

Filing a petition for reconsideration

by the Administrator of this interim

final determination of Virginia’s

enhanced I/M SIP 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) of the Administrative

Procedures Act).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 12, 1997.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

Chapter I, title 40, of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart VV—Virginia

2. Section 52.2450 is amended by

revising the first sentence of paragraphs

(b)(1), paragraph (b)(2), and the first

sentence of paragraph (b)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2450 Conditional Approval.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) The Commonwealth must perform

and submit the new modeling

demonstration that illustrates how its

program will meet the relevant

enhanced performance standard by June

16, 1998. * * *

(2) The Commonwealth must submit

to EPA as a SIP amendment, by June 16,

1998, the final Virginia I/M regulation

which requires a METT-based

evaluation be performed on 0.1% of the

subject fleet each year as per 40 CFR

51.353(c)(3) and which meets all other

program evaluation elements specified

in 40 CFR 51.353(c), including a

program evaluation schedule, a protocol

for the testing, and a system for

collection and analysis of program

evaluation data.

(3) By June 16, 1998, Virginia must

adopt and submit a final Virginia I/M

regulation which requires and which

specifies detailed, approvable test

procedures and equipment

specifications for all of the evaporative

and exhaust tests to be used in the

enhanced I/M program. * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–24945 Filed 9–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–21–1–7345a; FRL–5894–4]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plan: Employee

Commute Options (Employer Trip

Reduction) Program for Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is

removing the Texas Employee Commute

Options (ECO) rule from the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Texas for the

purpose of establishing an ECO program

(also known as the Employer Trip

Reduction (ETR) program). This action

relieves the State from mandatory

implementation of the ECO program in

the Houston-Galveston ozone

nonattainment area. The authority for

this removal action is based on Public

Law 104–70 and the subsequent EPA

policy issued on April 23, 1996. This

legislation allows the states to remove

such provisions from the SIP, or

withdraw their submission, if the state

notifies the Administrator, in writing,

that the state has undertaken, or will

undertake, one or more alternative

methods that will achieve emission

reductions equivalent to those to be

achieved by the removed or withdrawn

provisions.

DATES: This action is effective on

November 18, 1997, unless adverse or

critical comments concerning this

action are submitted and postmarked by

October 20, 1997. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be

submitted to Mr. J. Behnam, P.E., Air

Planning Section (6PDL), Environmental

Protection Agency,Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.

Copies of the State ECO withdrawal

request are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

following locations. Interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day.

Air Planning Section (6PDL),

Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone:

(214) 665–7214.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Environmental