Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 61633

characteristics of the area or cause

physical damage to it;

(c) Conflict with adjacent ownership

or land uses; or

(d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent

owners or occupants.

Based on this determination, this

rulemaking is categorically excluded

from the procedural requirements of the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) by Departmental guidelines in

516 DM 6 (49 FR 21438). As such,

neither an Environmental Assessment

nor an Environmental Impact Statement

has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 4

National parks, Traffic regulations.

In consideration of the foregoing, 36

CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 4—VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SAFETY

1. The authority citation for Part 4

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 462(k).

2. Section 4.15 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 4.15 Safety belts.

(a) Each operator and passenger

occupying any seating position of a

motor vehicle in a park area will have

the safety belt or child restraint system

properly fastened at all times when the

vehicle is in motion. The safety belt and

child restraint system will conform to

applicable United States Department of

Transportation standards.

(b) This section does not apply to an

occupant in a seat that was not

originally equipped by the manufacturer

with a safety belt nor does it apply to

a person who can demonstrate that a

medical condition prevents restraint by

a safety belt or other occupant

restraining device.

Dated: November 6, 1997.

Donald J. Barry,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 97–30135 Filed 11–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[LA–33–1–7357; FRL–5924–6]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans (SIP) for

Louisiana: Motor Vehicle Inspection

and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final disapproval.

SUMMARY: This EPA rulemaking

addresses comments received in

response to the proposed disapproval of

the SIP revision submitted by Louisiana

for establishing and operating a motor

vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/

M) Program, and finalizes disapproval

of the plan. An enhanced I/M program

is required in the Baton Rouge serious

ozone nonattainment area under the

Clean Air Act (the Act) as amended in

1990. The State lacks the legal authority

to establish and operate an I/M program

in the ozone nonattainment area. This

action is being taken under section 110

of the Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective

December 19, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations. Persons interested in

examining these documents should

make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 6, Air

Planning Section (6PD–L), 1445 Ross

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–

2733. Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality, Air Quality

Compliance Division, 7290 Bluebonnet,

2nd Floor, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Louisiana Department of Environmental

Quality Capital Regional Office, 11720

Airline Highway, Baton Rouge,

Louisiana.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Sandra G. Rennie, Air Planning Section

(6PD–L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214) 665–7367.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On July 31, 1997 (62 FR 41002), EPA

published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of

Louisiana. The NPR withdrew the

previous conditional approval proposed

June 9, 1997 (62 FR 31388), and

proposed disapproval of the State’s I/M

program SIP submitted to satisfy

requirements of section 182(c)(3) of the

Act concerning serious ozone

nonattainment areas.

The proposed conditional approval

was withdrawn and disapproval

proposed because the State Legislature

did not reauthorize and provide

continuous authorization for an I/M

program during the 1997 Regular

Legislative Session. Bills to reauthorize

the I/M program for two more years, and

to fund the program, were introduced,

but neither was enacted. The I/M

program start date, as stated in the SIP,

is January 1, 1999. Program

reauthorization was needed to develop

the program in time to meet the January

1999 start date. Continuous program

authorization is needed to satisfy I/M

Rule 40 CFR 51.372 that requires states

to provide legal authority for the I/M

program until such time as it is no

longer necessary. Legal authority in the

revised Louisiana SIP is limited to

reauthorization by the State Legislature

in odd-numbered years starting in 1997.

The EPA considered this a major

deficiency in the SIP.

Other specific requirements of the

Louisiana I/M SIP and the rationale for

EPA’s proposed action are explained in

the NPRs and will not be restated here.

II. Public Comments/Response to

Comments

This section discusses the content of

the comments submitted to the docket

during the Federal comment period for

the notice of proposed rulemaking

published in the July 31, 1997, Federal

Register (FR), and provides EPA’s

response to those comments. The

comment period closed September 2,

1997. One comment was received by the

Region. The comment was from the

Louisiana Department of Environmental

Quality (LDEQ).

Comment—Transportation Conformity

Rule

The LDEQ commented that the

inclusion of transportation conformity

sanctions in the proposed rulemaking is

an error. The stated sanctions were in

the form of a Transportation

Improvement Plan lapse or freeze

following final disapproval. The

transportation conformity rule (58 FR

62216, November 24, 1993), clearly

defines control strategy implementation

plan. The Louisiana I/M SIP is not a

control strategy implementation plan.

Therefore, the State’s I/M SIP should

not include transportation conformity

sanctions.

Response to Comment

The EPA agrees with LDEQ’s

comment adding the following

explanation: When the previous NPR

was being developed, and at the time of

its publication, the transportation

conformity rule was undergoing

revision. The Region chose to include

transportation conformity sanctions at

that time as a precautionary measure,

pending the publication of the revised

transportation conformity rule.

Subsequently, the revised transportation

conformity rule was published (August

15, 1997, 62 FR 43779). Since the I/M
61634 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

program is not part of Louisiana’s 15%

Rate-of-Progress Plan or its Post-1996

Rate of Progress/ Attainment

Demonstration Plan, it is not considered

a control strategy under the definition in

the transportation conformity rule. The

EPA agrees that the transportation

conformity sanctions stated in the

proposed disapproval notice do not

apply to Louisiana in this case.

III. Final Rulemaking

The EPA is finalizing disapproval of

the Louisiana I/M SIP under sections

110(k)(3) and 182 of the Act. During the

last regular session ending June 23,

1997, the State Legislature did not

provide either program reauthorization

or continuous program authority for the

I/M program as required in the Federal

I/M Rule. The Legislature is not

scheduled to meet in regular session

until the Spring of 1999, which is after

the January 1, 1999, start date

designated in the SIP.

Under section 179(a)(2), if the EPA

Administrator takes final disapproval

action on a submission under section

110(k) for an area designated

nonattainment based on the

submission’s failure to meet one or more

of the elements required by the Act, and

the deficiency is not corrected within 18

months of the effective date of the final

disapproval action, the Administrator

must apply one of the sanctions set forth

in section 179(b) of the Act. Section

179(b) provides two sanctions:

Imposition of 2:1 emission offset

requirements and revocation of highway

funding. If the Administrator imposes

the first requirement of 2:1 offsets and

the deficiency is not corrected within

six months, then the second sanction

pertaining to highway funding shall

apply. The sanctions shall apply until

the Administrator determines that the

State has corrected the legislative

deficiency, and EPA has issued final

approval. This sanctions process is set

forth in 40 CFR 52.31. Today’s action

constitutes final agency action and will

be effective 30 days after publication.

The 18-month sanction clock time frame

for the State to correct the deficiency

begins upon the effective date of this

final disapproval action. This

disapproval initiates the sanctions

process of 179(a) of the Act.

Nothing in today’s action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP 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

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 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. See 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.

The EPA’s final disapproval of the

State request under sections 110 and

301, and subchapter I, part D of the Act

does not affect any existing

requirements applicable to small

entities. Any preexisting Federal

requirements remain in place after this

final disapproval. Federal disapproval

of the State submittal does not affect its

State-enforceability. Moreover, the

EPA’s disapproval of the submittal does

not impose any new Federal

requirements. Therefore, the EPA

certifies that this final disapproval

action does not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because it does not remove

existing requirements, nor does it

impose any new Federal requirements.

C. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the

Administrative Procedures Act (APA) as

amended 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. House of Representatives and

the Comptroller General of the General

Accounting Office prior to publication

of the rule in today’s Federal Register.

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by section 804(2) of the APA as

amended.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandate Reform Act of 1995, 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 aggregate;

or to the 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.

The EPA has determined that the final

disapproval action 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 does

not impose new requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or

private sector, result from this action.

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by January 20, 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, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

Dated: November 6, 1997.

Lynda F. Carroll,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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 T—Louisiana

2. Section 52.994 is added to read as

follows:

§ 52.994 Disapprovals.

The State of Louisiana motor vehicle

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)

program SIP submittal of August 18,

1995, with later editions, is disapproved

based on the failure of the State

Legislature to grant legal authority to

reauthorize and continuously operate

the program until the program is no
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 61635

longer necessary. The Baton Rouge

serious ozone nonattainment area is

required to have an enhanced I/M

program under section 182 of the Clean

Air Act (the Act) as amended in 1990.

This disapproval initiates the sanction

process of section 179(a) of the Act.

[FR Doc. 97–30376 Filed 11–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300557; FRL–5746–1]

Methyl Salicylate; Establishment of an

Exemption from Requirement of a

Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes an

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues of the insecticide

methyl salicylate in or on food, when

used as an insect repellent in food

packaging and animal feed packaging at

an application rate that does not exceed

0.2 mg of methyl salicylate per square

inch of packaging materials.

EFFECTIVE DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number [OPP–300557/PP

7F4818], may be submitted to: Hearing

Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Fees

accompanying objections and hearing

requests shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance

Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations

Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy

of any objections and hearing requests

filed with the Hearing Clerk should be

identified by the docket control number

[OPP–300557] and submitted to: Public

Information and Records Integrity

Branch, Information Resources and

Services Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

copy of objections and hearing requests

to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson

Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

A copy of objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may be submitted electronically by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of

electronic objections and hearing

requests must be submitted as an ASCII

file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format

or ASCII file format. All copies of

electronic objections and hearing

requests must be identified by the

docket control number [OPP–300557].

No Confidential Business Information

(CBI) should be submitted through email. Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests on this rule may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Sheryl K. Reilly, Biopesticides and

Pollution Prevention Division (7501W),

Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460,

Office location and telephone number:

Room CS15-W31, 2800 Jefferson Davis

Hwy., Arlington, VA, (703/308-8265); email: reilly.sheryl@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Tenneco

Packaging, 1603 Orrington Ave.,

Evanston, IL, 60201, requested in

pesticide petition PP 7F4818 the

establishment of an exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance for residues

of the insecticide methyl salicylate on

food, when used as a insect repellent in

food packaging and animal feed

packaging materials alone or in

conjunction with inert components

which conform to the requirements of

regulations issued by the Food and Drug

Administration under section 409 of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

(FFDCA). A notice of filing (FRL–5721–

6) was published in the Federal Register

(62 FR 32331) on June 13, 1997, and the

notice announced that the comment

period would end on July 13, 1997; no

comments were received.

The data submitted in the petition

and all other relevant material have

been evaluated. Following is a summary

of EPA’s findings regarding this petition

as required by section 408(d) of the

FFDCA, as recently amended by the

Food Quality Protection Act.

I. Risk Assessment and Statutory

Findings

New section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the

FFDCA allows EPA to establish an

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide

chemical residue in or on a food) only

if EPA determines that the tolerance is

‘‘safe’’. Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) defines

‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a

reasonable certainty that no harm will

result from aggregate exposure to the

pesticide chemical residue, including

all anticipated dietary exposures and all

other exposures for which there is

reliable information.’’ This includes

exposure through drinking water an in

residential settings, but does not include

occupational exposure. Section

408(c)(2)(B) requires EPA to give special

consideration to exposure of infants and

children to the pesticide chemical

residue in establishing a tolerance and

to ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable

certainty that no harm will result to

infants and children from aggregate

exposure to the pesticide chemical

residue... .’’ EPA performs a number of

analyses to determine the risks from

aggregate exposure to pesticide residues.

First, EPA determines the toxicity of

pesticides. Second, EPA examines

exposure to the pesticide through food,

drinking water, and through other

exposures that occur as a result of

pesticide use in residential settings.

II. Toxicological Profile

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D)

of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the

available scientific data and other

relevant information in support of this

action and considered its validity,

completeness and reliability and the

relationship of this information to

human risk. EPA has also considered

available information concerning the

variability of the sensitivities of major

identifiable subgroups of consumers,

including infants and children.

Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D)(v)

requires that, when considering whether

to establish, modify, or revoke a

tolerance, the Agency consider

‘‘available information’’ concerning the

cumulative effects of a particular

pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other

substances that have a common

mechanism of toxicity.’’ Methyl

salicylate (CAS Registry Number 119–

36–8) is the primary chemical

component of a naturally occurring

fragrant oil, oil of wintergreen. If present

at all, residues of methyl salicylate that

may be found in foods in contact with

treated packaging materials is expected

to be minimal and considerably below

the levels expected in existing GRAS

uses of the active ingredient as a direct

food flavoring ingredient.

The toxicity of methyl salicylate has

been extensively studied in animal

bioassays of acute, subchronic, and

chronic duration. Studies include

assessments of the mutagenicity,

developmental toxicity, and

reproductive effects of methyl salicylate.

The petitioner submitted data from the

scientific literature to support all

toxicology studies typically required for

registration of biochemical pesticides.

1. Acute toxicity . The acute oral LD50

for methyl salicylate in the rat ranges