24118 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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 November 13,

1996, 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).

Because the delay in the effective date

was caused by EPA’s inadvertent failure

to submit the rule under the CRA, EPA

does not believe that affected entities

that acted in good faith relying upon the

effective date stated in the November

13, 1996, Federal Register should be

penalized if they were complying with

the rule as promulgated.

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

justice related issues as required by

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,

February 16, 1994). Because this action

is not subject to notice-and-comment

requirements under the Administrative

Procedure Act or any other statute, it is

not subject to the regulatory flexibility

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). EPA’s

compliance with these statutes and

Executive Orders for the underlying rule

is discussed in the November 13, 1996,

Federal Register document.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as

added by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 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 General Accounting

Office; however, in accordance with 5

U.S.C. 808(2), this rule is effective on

May 1, 1998. This rule is not a ‘‘major

rule’’ as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This final rule only amends the

effective date of the underlying rule; it

does not amend any substantive

requirements contained in the rule.

Accordingly, to the extent it is available,

judicial review is limited to the

amended effective date.

Dated: April 22, 1998.

Carol Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–11548 Filed 4–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[FRL–5983–6]

Technical Amendments to

Sulfentrazone; Establishment of

Tolerances; Correction of Effective

Date Under Congressional Review Act

(CRA)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction of

effective date under CRA.

SUMMARY: On March 10, 1997 (62 FR

10703), the Environmental Protection

Agency published in the Federal

Register a final rule concerning the

establishment of tolerances for residues

of the herbicide sulfentrazone (N-[2,4-

dichloro-5-[4-(difluromethyl)-4,5-

dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-

triazol-1-yl]pheny]methanesulfonamide)

and its major metabolite 3-

hydroxymethyl sulfentrazone (N-[2,4-

dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-

dihydro-3-hydroxymethyl-5-oxo-1H-1H1,2,4-triazol-1-

yl]pheny]methanesulfonamide), in or on

the raw agricultural commodity soybean

seed at 0.05 ppm and for combined

inadvertent residues of sulfentrazone,

and its metabolites, 3-hydroxymethyl

sulfentrazone and 3-desmethyl

sulfentrazone [N-2[2,4-dichloro-5[4-

(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-1H1,2,4-triazol-1-

yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide] in

cereal grains (excluding sweet corn)

forage at 0.2 ppm, straw at 0.6 ppm, hay

at 0.2 ppm, grain at 0.1 ppm, stover at

0.1 ppm, bran at 0.15 ppm and hulls at

0.30 ppm. The March 10, 1997,

document established an effective date

of March 10, 1997. This document

corrects the effective date of the rule

May 1, 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 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angela Hofman, Office of Pesticide

Programs and Toxic Substances at (202)

260–2922.

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

March 10, 1997, Federal Register

document, by operation of law, the rule

did not take effect on March 10, 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 408(e)(2) of the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21

U.S.C. 346a(e)(2), provides that the

Administrator, before issuing a final

rule under section 408(e)(1), shall issue

a proposed rule and allow 60 days for

public comment unless the

Administrator for good cause finds that

it would be in the public interest to

provide a shorter period. 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 section

408(e)(2). Moreover, since today’s action

does not create any new regulatory

requirements and affected parties have

known of the underlying rule since

March 10, 1997, EPA finds that good

cause exists to provide for an immediate

effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

808(2). Under section 408(g)(1) of

FFDCA, today’s rule is effective upon

publication.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 24119

Because the delay in the effective date

was caused by EPA’s inadvertent failure

to submit the rule under the CRA, EPA

does not believe that affected entities

that acted in good faith relying upon the

effective date stated in the March 10,

1997, Federal Register should be

penalized if they were complying with

the rule as promulgated.

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

justice related issues as required by

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,

February 16, 1994). Because this action

is not subject to notice-and-comment

requirements under the Administrative

Procedure Act or any other statute, it is

not subject to the regulatory flexibility

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). EPA’s

compliance with these statutes and

Executive Orders for the underlying rule

is discussed in the March 10, 1997,

Federal Register document.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(a),

added by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 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 General Accounting

Office; however, in accordance with 5

U.S.C. 808(2), this rule is effective on

May 1, 1998. This rule is not a ‘‘major

rule’’ as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This final rule only amends the

effective date of the underlying rule; it

does not amend any substantive

requirements contained in the rule.

Accordingly, to the extent it is available,

judicial review is limited to the

amended effective date.

Dated: April 22, 1998.

Carol Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–11547 Filed 4–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[FRL–5983–1]

Technical Amendments to

Propiconazole Pesticide Tolerances for

Emergency Exemptions Correction;

Correction of Effective Date Under

Congressional Review Act (CRA)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction of

effective date under CRA.

SUMMARY: On May 2, 1997 (62 FR

24045), the Environmental Protection

Agency published in the Federal

Register a final rule that corrected the

tolerance level for cranberries that had

been listed incorrectly in a document

published in the Federal Register on

April 11, 1997, establishing time-limited

tolerances for combined residues of the

pesticide propiconazole in or on the

food commodities almonds and

cranberries. The May 2, 1997, notice

established an effective date of May 2,

1997. This document corrects the

effective date of the rule to May 1, 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

May 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angela Hofman, Office of Pesticide

Programs and Toxic Substances at (202)

260–2922.

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

May 2, 1997, Federal Register

document, by operation of law, the rule

did not take effect on May 2, 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 408(e)(20 of the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21

U.S.C. 346a(e)(2), provides that the

Administrator, before issuing a final

rule under section 408(e)(1), shall issue

a proposed rule and allow 60 days for

public comment unless the

Administrator for good cause finds that

it would be in the public interest to

provide a shorter period. 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 section

408(e)(2). Moreover, since today’s action

does not create any new regulatory

requirements and affected parties have

known of the underlying rule since May

2, 1997, EPA finds that good cause

exists to provide for an immediate

effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

808(2). Under section 408(g)(1) of

FFDCA, today’s rule is effective upon

publication.

Because the delay in the effective date

was caused by EPA’s inadvertent failure

to submit the rule under the CRA, EPA

does not believe that affected entities

that acted in good faith relying upon the

effective date stated in the May 2, 1997,

Federal Register should be penalized if

they were complying with the rule as

promulgated.

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

justice related issues as required by

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,

February 16, 1994). Because this action

is not subject to notice-and-comment

requirements under the Administrative

Procedure Act or any other statute, it is

not subject to the regulatory flexibility

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as

added by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

will submit a report containing this rule

and other required information to the