Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 29955

Mr. David Frank, Bridge Administration

Branch, telephone number 504–589–

2965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Southern Pacific railroad bridge

across Clear Creek, mile 1.0, at

Seabrook, Texas, was removed in 1997.

The elimination of this drawbridge

necessitates the removal of the

drawbridge operation regulation that

pertained to this draw. This rule

removes the regulation for this bridge in

§ 117.961.

The Coast Guard has determined that

good cause exists under the

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

553) to forego notice and comment for

this rulemaking because the bridge is no

longer in existence, eliminating the

need for the regulation.

The Coast Guard, for the reason just

stated, has also determined that good

cause exists for this rule to become

effective upon publication in the

Federal Register.

Regualtory Evaluation

This final rule is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

Order. It has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget under

that Order. It is not significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (DOT)

(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The

Coast Guard expects the economic

impact of this final rule to be so

minimal that a full Regulatory

Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the

regulatory policies and procedures of

DOT is unnecessary.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

considers whether this final rule will

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

‘‘Small entities’’ include (1) small

businesses, not-for-profit organizations

that are independently owned and

operated and are not dominant in their

fields, and (2) governmental

jurisdictions with populations of less

than 50,000.

Since the Southern Pacific Railroad

bridge across Clear Creek, mile 1.0, at

Seabrook, Texas has been removed, the

rule governing the bridge is no longer

appropriate. Therefore, the Coast Guard

certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this

final rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Collection of Information

this final rule does not provide for a

collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

final rule under the principals and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 and has determined that this

rulemaking does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this final rule

and concluded that under Figure 2–1,

CE # 32(e) of the NEPA Implementing

Procedures, COMDINST M16475.IC,

this final rule is categorically excluded

from further environmental

documentation. A ‘‘Categorical

Exclusion Determination’’ is available in

the docket for inspection or copying

where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulations

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard is amending

Part 117 of Title 33, Code of Federal

Regulations, as follows:

PAR 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION

REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 105

Stat. 5039.

§ 117.961 [Removed]

2. Section 117.961 is removed.

Dated: May 11, 1998.

Paul J. Pluta,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Eighth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 98–14451 Filed 6–1 –98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[DC–036–2011; FRL–6103–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; District

of Columbia; Enhanced Motor Vehicle

Inspection and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is granting conditional

approval of a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision submitted by the District

of Columbia. This revision establishes

and requires the implementation of an

enhanced motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) program throughout

the District. The intended effect of this

action is to conditionally approve the

District of Columbia enhanced motor

vehicle I/M program. EPA is granting

approval of this SIP revision,

conditioned upon the District meeting

the April 30, 1999 start date committed

to and contained in its enhanced I/M

SIP revision.

EFFECTIVE DATES: This final rule is

effective on July 2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the Air Programs

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine L. Magliocchetti 215–566–

2174, at the EPA Region III address

above, or via e-mail at magliocchetti.

catherineepamail. epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On March 30, 1998 (63 FR 15118),

EPA published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPR) for the District of

Columbia. The NPR proposed

conditional approval of the enhanced I/

M program, submitted on November 25,

1997 by the District of Columbia

Department of Health (DoH). A

description of the District’s submittal

and EPA’s rationale for its proposed

action were presented in the NPR and

will not be restated here.

II. Public Comments/Response to Public

Comments

There were no comments submitted

during the public comment period on

this notice.
29956 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

III. Conditional Approval

Under the terms of EPA’s March 30,

1998 notice of proposed rulemaking (63

FR 15118), the District’s enhanced I/M

program is conditionally approved,

pending full implementation of the

program on or before April 30, 1998. All

other aspects of the District’s plan were

considered approvable by EPA, in

accordance with the Clean Air Act

(CAA) and the federal I/M rule

requirements.

IV. Final Rulemaking Action

EPA is conditionally approving the

District’s enhanced I/M program as a

revision to the District of Columbia SIP,

based upon the District commitment to

begin full implementation of the

program by April 30, 1999. Should the

District fail to fulfill this condition by

April 30, 1999, this conditional

approval will convert to a disapproval

pursuant to CAA section 110(k). In that

event, EPA would issue a letter to notify

the District that the condition had not

been met, and that the approval had

converted to a disapproval.

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.

V. 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.

Conditional approvals of SIP

submittals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements but simply

approve requirements that the District is

already imposing. Therefore, because

the Federal SIP approval does not

impose any new requirements, EPA

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).

If the conditional approval is

converted to a disapproval under

section 110(k), based on the State’s

failure to meet the commitment, it will

not affect any existing state

requirements applicable to small

entities. Federal disapproval of the state

submittal does not affect its stateenforceability. Moreover, EPA’s

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose a new Federal requirement.

Therefore, EPA certifies that this

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 substitute a new federal

requirement.

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

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the

conditional 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 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 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 0the

appropriate circuit by August 3, 1998.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule to

conditionally approve the District of

Columbia 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).

F. 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 105 /Tuesday, June 2, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 29957

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, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: May 18, 1998.

William T. Wisniewski,

Acting 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 J—District of Columbia

2. Section 52.473 is added to read as

follows:

§ 52.473 Conditional approval.

The District of Columbia’s November

25, 1997 submittal, for an enhanced

motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) program, is

conditionally approved pending full

implementation of the program by April

30, 1999. Should the District fail to

fulfill this condition by April 30, 1999,

this conditional approval will convert to

a disapproval pursuant to CAA section

110(k). In that event, EPA would issue

a letter to notify the District that the

condition had not been met, and that

the approval had converted to a

disapproval.

[FR Doc. 98–14158 Filed 6–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN82–2; FRL–6013–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical

amendment.

SUMMARY: This document contains

corrections to final rules which were

published on June 26, 1997 and October

23, 1997. These revisions related to

items listed as incorporated in the

Indiana State Implementation Plan as

part of the State’s photochemical

oxidant control strategy which is

designated as § 52.777 Control strategy:

Photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons),

Subpart P—Indiana, part 52, chapter 1,

title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randolph O. Cano at (312)886–6036.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 23, 1997 (62 FR 55173), when

the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) approved the

addition of a 1-year extension of the

ozone attainment date in the Indiana

portion of the Louisville moderate

ozone nonattainment area which

consists of Clark and Floyd Counties,

EPA erroneously codified its approval at

40 CFR 52.777(q). Paragraph (q) had

already been utilized to codify EPA’s

June 26, 1997 (62 FR 34406), approval

of an addition to the Indiana SIP in the

form of a transportation control measure

for Vanderburgh County.

Need for Correction

This duplicate use of paragraph

52.777(q) makes citation to this

paragraph confusing and unclear as well

as imprecise. For this reason EPA is

publishing this Technical Amendment

to avoid further confusion.

Administrative Procedure Act

This action will be effective

immediately upon publication in the

Federal Register pursuant to the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

533(d)(1) and (3)(APA) for good cause.

This action which merely redesignates a

paragraph used to codify EPA’s

approval of a one-year ozone attainment

date extension for Clark and Floyd

Counties in Indiana is too minor to be

of interest to the general public. Holding

a public comment period on this action

is unnecessary. The thirty day delay of

the effective date of this action generally

required by the APA is unwarranted in

that it does not serve the public interest

to unnecessarily delay the effective date

of this action.

Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, 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 annual costs of $100 million or

more, will not significantly or uniquely

affect small governments, and is not a

significant Federal intergovernmental

mandate. The EPA thus has no

obligations under sections 202, 203, 204

and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act. Moreover, since this action

is not subject to notice-and-comment

requirements under the APA or any

other statute, it is not subject to sections

603 or 604 of the Regulatory Flexability

Act.

Children’s Health Protection

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

entitled ‘‘Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

because it does not involve decisions on

environmental health risks or safety

risks that may disproportionately affect

children.

Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

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

Administrative Procedure 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. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

this Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by section

804(2) of the APA as amended.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental Protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Transportation control measure.

Dated: April 29, 1998.

Barry C. DeGraff,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Accordingly, part 52, chapter I, title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

corrected by making the following

Technical Amendment:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 452 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart P—Indiana

2. Section 52.777 is amended by

redesignating the second paragraph(q)

as (r).

[FR Doc. 98–14290 Filed 6–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P