Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 224 / Friday, November 20, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 64417

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

EPA 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

because it is neither economically

significant nor does it involve decisions

intended to mitigate environmental

health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue

a regulation that is not required by

statute, that significantly affects or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected and

other representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. This action

does not involve or impose any

requirements that affect Indian Tribes.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply

to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

action will not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small entities

because it simply extends the deadline

for the State of Arizona to submit an

already-mandated requirement. Because

the State of Arizona is not a ‘‘small

entity’’ under RFA and this action does

not create any new requirements, I

certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

F. 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 annual 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 this action

extending the deadline for submittal of

an already-required plan does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated annual costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

to the private sector. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

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. Senate, 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.

H. 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 January 19, 1999.

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, ozone.

Date: October 24, 1998.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 98–29820 Filed 11–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 406

rain Mills Point Source Category

CFR Correction

In title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, part 400 to 424, revised as

of July 1, 1998, on page 78, in the

second column, § 406.22 is printed

correctly as follows:

§ 406.22 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the application of

the best practicable control technology

currently available.

Except as provided in §§ 125.30

through 125.32, any existing point

source subject to this subpart shall

achieve the following effluent

limitations representing the degree of

effluent reduction attainable by the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT):

Effluent characteristic

Effluent limitations

Maximum

for any 1

day

Average of daily

values for 30

consecutive days

shall not

exceed—

Metric units (kilograms per

1,000 kg of corn)

BOD5 ........... 0.21 0.07

TSS ............. 0.18 0.06

pH ................ (1) (1) 

English units (pounds per

1,000 stdbu of corn)

BOD5 ........... 12.0 4.0

TSS ............. 10.5 3.5

pH ................ (1) (1)

1 Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

[39 FR 10513, Mar. 20, 1974, as amended at

60 FR 33936, June 29, 1995]