34300 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 121 /Wednesday, June 24, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

IV. Miscellaneous

A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. The EPA

shall consider each request for revision

to the SIP in light of specific technical,

economic, and environmental factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

review.

The final rule is not subject to E.O.

13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children

from Environmental Health Risks and

Safety Risks,’’ because it is not an

‘‘economically significant’’ action under

E.O. 12866.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because this disapproval only

affects one source, Leon Plastics, Inc.

Therefore, I certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. Furthermore, as explained in

this action, the request does not meet

the requirements of the Clean Air Act

and EPA cannot approve the request.

EPA has no option but to disapprove the

submittal.

EPA’s disapproval of the State request

under Section 110 and subchapter I,

part D of the Clean Air Act does not

affect any existing requirements

applicable to small entities. Any preexisting Federal requirements remain in

place after this disapproval. Federal

disapproval of the State submittal does

not affect its State enforceability.

Moreover, EPA’s disapproval of the

submittal does not impose any new

Federal requirements. Therefore, I

certify that this disapproval action does

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates 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 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 this

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 disapproval

action imposes no new requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result.

E. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act

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 rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. Section 804,

however, exempts from section 891 the

following types of rules: rules of

particular applicability; rules relating to

agency management or personnel; and

rules of agency organization, procedure,

or practice that do not substantially

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is

not required to submit a rule report

regarding this action under section 801

because this is a rule of particular

applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: June 12, 1998.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–16672 Filed 6–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[GA–035–2–9815a; FRL–6115–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans Georgia:

Approval of Revisions for a

Transportation Control Measure

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to

the Georgia State Implementation Plan

(SIP) submitted by the State through the

Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

on August 29, 1997, requesting the

incorporation of several transportation

control measures (TCMs) into the SIP

and the deletion of two TCMs from the

existing SIP. This action only addresses

the incorporation of one of the five

TCMs submitted for approval into the

SIP. Action was taken on the other

TCMs in a separate rulemaking. The

subject of this action is an alternative

fuel refueling station/park and ride

transportation center project located in

Douglas County.

DATES: This final rule is effective August

10, 1998 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by July 24, 1998.

Should the Agency receive such

comments, it will publish in the Federal

Register a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule informing the public

that this rule did not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Kelly A.

Sheckler 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

GA35–9807. The Region 4 office may

have additional background documents

not available at the other locations.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303. Attn: Kelly Sheckler, 404/562–

9042.

Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Environmental Protection

Division, Air Protection Division,

4244 International Parkway, Suite

136, Atlanta, Georgia 30354.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelly A. Sheckler at 404/562–9042.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 121 /Wednesday, June 24, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 34301

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 108(e) of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (the Act), provides air

quality planning guidance for the

development and implementation of

transportation and other measures

necessary to demonstrate and maintain

attainment of national ambient air

quality standards. Section 108(f)(1)(A)

provides a list of transportation control

measures (TCMs) with emission

reduction potential. The USEPA has

further provided guidance in the final

report entitled Transportation Control

Measures: State Implementation Plan

Guidance dated September 1990; and in

Transportation Control Measure

Information Documents dated March

1992.

Section 108(f)(1)(A) of the Act lists

sixteen TCMs for consideration by states

and planning agencies to reduce

emissions and maintain the national

ambient air quality standards. Programs

to reduce motor vehicle emissions

consistent with title II of the Act are

listed in section 108(f)(1)(A)(xii).

II. Evaluation of the State Submittal

On August 29, 1997, the State of

Georgia through the DNR submitted to

the EPA a request to approve five

Atlanta TCMs into the SIP, specifically,

the addition of a High Occupancy

Vehicle (HOV) lane, an employer-based

transit subsidy program, a university

rideshare program, development of

transportation management

associations, and an alternative fuel

refueling station/park and ride

transportation center. In addition, the

State requested the removal of two

existing TCMs because they will not be

implemented. These TCMs include five

express bus routes on Cobb Community

Transit and two park and ride lots on

Cobb Community Transit routes. A

public hearing on the proposed SIP

revision was held on August 27, 1997.

The SIP submission was found complete

by EPA in a letter dated October 27,

1997.

The alternative fuel refueling station/

park and ride transportation center TCM

for the Atlanta Metropolitan Area is

described below. An emissions analysis

of this TCM was performed which

demonstrated that an emission benefit

would result from the implementation

of this TCM. Although the State has

requested that the TCM be approved in

the SIP, no emissions credit is being

claimed in the SIP for the measure.

Therefore, the emissions analysis was

reviewed only to determine that no

further air quality degradation would

result from the implementation of this

TCM. EPA’s review determined that the

data assumptions and calculations

provided reasonable assurance that an

air quality benefit would occur.

Alternative Fuel Station/Multi-Modal

Transportation Center. This project is

referenced as DO–AR 211. A multimodal/park and ride transportation

center, which includes an alternative

fuel refueling station, will offer service

to the Douglas County vehicle fleets,

buses and vanpools. The Douglas

County Rideshare Program, that will

manage the facility, currently operates

14 vanpools with 15 additional

vanpools anticipated in the future. The

Douglas County Board of

Commissioners committed to

implement the alternative fuel refueling

station in conjunction with the

construction of the multi-modal

transportation center. An emissions

analysis performed by the Atlanta

Regional Commission (ARC) indicated

that this project will result in reductions

of emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) and oxides of

nitrogen (NOX) in the 13-county Atlanta

ozone nonattainment area by reducing

congestion, reducing use of single

occupancy vehicles and improving

traffic flow.

This project was formally endorsed by

the Douglas County Board of

Commissioners in letters dated April 15,

1997 and February 27, 1998. The

primary funding sources for this project

are congestion Mitigation and Air

Quality funds and a grant from the

Georgia Environmental Facilities

Authority.

This project is included in the Atlanta

Interim Transportation Improvement

Program (ITIP) contingent upon

approval in the SIP. Based upon the

schedule provided for in the ITIP, the

multi-modal center and alternative fuel

refueling station will be implemented in

a timely manner and given funding

priority. The alternative fuel refueling

station and park and ride lot are

scheduled for completion in December

1999.

III. EPA Action

EPA is approving the aforementioned

changes to the SIP. The Agency has

reviewed this request for revision of the

Federally-approved SIP for conformance

with the provisions of the amendments

enacted on November 15, 1990. The

Agency has determined that this action

conforms with those requirements.

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in the proposed

rules section of this Federal Register

publication, EPA is publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to approve the SIP revision

should relevant adverse comments be

filed. This rule will be effective August

10, 1998 without further notice unless

the Agency receives relevant adverse

comments by July 24, 1998.

If the EPA receives such comments,

then EPA will publish a notice

withdrawing the final rule and

informing the public that the rule did

not take effect. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

the proposed rule. Any parties

interested in commenting on the

proposed rule should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, the

public is advised that this rule will be

effective on August 10, 1998 and no

further action will be taken on the

proposed rule.

EPA has determined that today’s rule

falls under the good cause exemption in

section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative

Procedures Act (APA) which, upon

finding good cause, allows an agency to

make a rule effective prior to the 30-day

delayed effective date otherwise

provided for in the APA. Today’s rule

simply approves non regulatory

transportation control measures.

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.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Executive Order 13045

This final rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks, because it is not an

‘‘economically significant’’ action under

Executive Order 12866.

C. 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
34302 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 121 /Wednesday, June 24, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, the

Regional Administrator 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) and 7410(k)(3).

D. 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 requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

E. 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 rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. However, section

808 provides that any rule for which the

issuing agency for good cause finds (and

incorporates the finding and a brief

statement of reasons therefore in the

rule) that notice and public procedure

thereon are impracticable, unnecessary

or contrary to the public interest, shall

take effect at such time as the agency

promulgating the rule determines. 5

U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA

has made such a good cause finding,

including the reasons therefore, and

established an effective date of August

10, 1998. 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).

F. 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 August 24, 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, Intergovernmental

relations, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: June 10, 1998.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, 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 et seq.

Subpart L—Georgia

2. Section 52.582, is amended by

adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as

follows:

§ 52.582 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) Alternative Fuel Refueling Station/

Park and Ride Transportation Center—

This project is referred to as DO–AR–

211.

[FR Doc. 98–16801 Filed 6–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300654A; FRL–5797–3]

RIN 2070–AB78

Peroxyacetic Acid; Exemption From

the Requirement of a Tolerance;

Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: EPA published in the Federal

Register of May 6, 1998, a final rule

establishing an exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance for residues

of the antimicrobial pesticide

peroxyacetic acid up to 100 parts per

million (ppm), in or on raw agricultural

commodities, in processed

commodities, when such residues result

from the use of peroxyacetic acid as an

antimicrobial agent on fruits, tree nuts,

cereal grains, herbs, and spices. The

word ‘‘vegetables’’ was omitted from the

specific tolerance exemption language

which is reproduced in five places of

the final rule. This document corrects

the final rule by inserting the word

‘‘vegetables’’ into each place that

contains the specific tolerance

exemption language.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This correction is

effective June 24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number, [OPP–300654A],

must 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