28960 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 101 /Wednesday, May 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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 proposed 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. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any

rule that is (1) likely to be

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined

under Executive Order 12866, and (2)

the Agency has reason to believe that

the environmental health or safety risk

addressed by the rule may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If a

regulatory action meets both criteria, the

Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045,

‘‘Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks’’ because this is not an

‘‘economically significant’’ regulatory

action as defined by E.O. 12866, and

because it does not involve decisions on

environmental health or safety risks that

may disproportionately affect children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile

organic compounds.

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

Dated: May 12, 1998.

Sally Seymour,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 98–13992 Filed 5–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FL–071–9810b; FRL–6015–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of Florida

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

the State implementation plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the Florida

Department of Environmental

Protection. In the final rules section of

this Federal Register, the EPA is

approving the State’s SIP revision as a

direct final rule without prior proposal

because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial revision amendment

and anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the approval is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

adverse comments are received in

response to this proposed rule, no

further activity is contemplated in

relation to this proposed rule. If EPA

receives adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this document. Any parties

interested in commenting on this

document should do so at this time.

DATES: To be considered, comments

must be received by June 26, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Karla L.

McCorkle at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4 Air

Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Copies of

documents relative to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the following

locations. The interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day. Reference file

FL–071. The Region 4 office may have

additional background documents not

available at the other locations.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303. Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, Air

Resources Management Division, Twin

Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair

Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399–

2400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karla L. McCorkle at 404/562–9043 (Email: mccorkle.karla@epamail.epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule which is published in the

rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: May 10, 1998.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 98–13988 Filed 5–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6014–6]

Delegation of National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Source Categories; State of

Nevada; Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection; Washoe

County District Health Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 112(l) of

the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA), the

Nevada Division of Environmental

Protection (NDEP) and the Washoe

County District Health Department

(WCDHD) requested delegation of

specific national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs).

WCDHD also requested approval for its

program for receiving delegation of

unchanged NESHAPs applicable to

sources not subject to Title V of the

CAA. In the Rules section of this

Federal Register, EPA is granting NDEP

and WCDHD the authority to implement

and enforce specified NESHAPs, and is
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 101 /Wednesday, May 27, 1998 / Proposed Rules 28961

approving WCDHD’s general program

for receiving delegation of unchanged

NESHAPs. The direct final rule also

explains the procedure for future

delegation of NESHAPs to NDEP and

WCDHD. EPA is taking direct final

action without prior proposal because

the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial action and anticipates

no adverse comments. A detailed

rationale for this approval is set forth in

the direct final rule. If no relevant

adverse comments are received in

response to this document, no further

activity is contemplated in relation to

this proposed rule. If EPA receives

relevant adverse comments, the direct

final rule will not take effect and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this proposal. Any parties

interested in commenting on this

proposal should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by June 26,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to: Andrew

Steckel, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the submitted requests are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region IX office during normal business

hours (docket number A–96–25).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae

Wang, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901,

Telephone: (415) 744–1200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document concerns delegation of

unchanged NESHAPs to the Nevada

Division of Environmental Protection

and the Washoe County District Health

Department. For further information,

please see the information provided in

the direct final action which is located

in the Rules section of this Federal

Register.

Authority: This action is issued under the

authority of section 112 of the Clean Air Act,

as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7412.

Dated: May 4, 1998.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 98–13987 Filed 5–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6102–3]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Contingency Plan;

National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the

Novaco Industries Superfund site from

the National Priorities List; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Region 5 announces its intent to delete

the Novaco Industries Site from the

National Priorities List (NPL) and

requests public comment on this

proposed action. The NPL constitutes

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which

is the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.

EPA and the Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) have

determined that the Site no longer poses

a significant threat to public health or

the environment and, therefore, further

remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA

are not appropriate.

DATES: Comments concerning this Site

may be submitted on or before June 26,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Russell D. Hart, U.S. EPA Region 5,

Superfund Division, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Mail Stop: SR–6J, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. Comprehensive

information on this Site is available

through the administrative record which

is available for viewing at the following

locations:

U.S. EPA Records Center—Seventh

Floor, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Bedford Township Hall and Monroe

County Library—Bedford Branch,

Bedford, Michigan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Russell D. Hart, U.S. EPA Region 5,

Superfund Division, SR–6J Chicago,

Illinois 60604, (312) 886–4844.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

EPA Region 5 announces its intent to

delete the Novaco Industries Site

location in Temperance, Michigan from

the NPL, Appendix B of the NCP, 40

CFR part 300, and requests comments

on this deletion. EPA identifies sites

that appear to present a significant risk

to public health, welfare, or the

environment and maintains the NPL as

the list of these sites. As described in

section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites

deleted from the NPL remain eligible for

remedial actions in the unlikely event

that conditions at the site warrant such

action.

EPA will accept comments on the

proposal to delete this Site for thirty

days after publication of this document

in the Federal Register.

Section II of this document explains

the criteria for deleting sites from the

NPL. Section III discusses the

procedures that EPA is using for this

action. Section IV discusses the Novaco

Industries Site and explains how the

Site meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP

provides that releases may be deleted

from, or recategorized on the NPL where

no further response is appropriate. In

making a determination to delete a

release from the NPL, EPA shall

consider, in consultation with the State,

whether any of the following criteria

have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other parties

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate response under

CERCLA has been implemented, and no

further action by responsible parties is

appropriate; or

(iii) The remedial investigation has

shown that the release poses no

significant threat to public health or the

environment and, therefore, taking of

remedial measures is not appropriate.

Even if a site is deleted from the NPL,

where hazardous substances, pollutants,

or contaminants remain at the site above

levels that allow for unlimited use and

unrestricted exposure, EPA’s policy is

that a subsequent review of the site will

be conducted at least every five years

after the initiation of the remedial action

at the site to ensure that the site remains

protective of public health and the

environment. In the case of this Site, the

selected remedy is protective of human

health and the environment. The five

year groundwater monitoring program

required by the 1991 Record of Decision

(ROD) Amendment has indicated that

no hazardous substances or

contaminants remain on site above