Skip to Content

Rule

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; States of Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska; Correction

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

On January 29, 2002, EPA published a direct final action approving the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) negative declaration submitted by Nebraska. We are correcting a citation for the entry for Nebraska.

DATES:

This action is effective April 1, 2002.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551-7603.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On January 29, 2002 (67 FR 4179), EPA published a direct final action approving the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) negative declaration submitted by the states of Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska.

The new entry in 40 CFR part 62, subpart CC-Nebraska contained an incorrect section numerical listing. The correct citation is: § 62.6916.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that there is such good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting an incorrect citation in a previous action. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule merely corrects an incorrect citation in a previous action, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely corrects a citation in a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act (CAA). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing state plan submissions, our role is to approve state choices, Start Printed Page 13272provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), we have no authority to disapprove state submissions for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews state submissions, to use VCS in place of state submissions that otherwise satisfy the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, we have taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 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 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement. As stated previously, we made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore and established an effective date of April 1, 2002. We will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This correction is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 et seq. (2).

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 62

End List of Subjects Start Amendment Part

Accordingly,

End Amendment Part Start Amendment Part

In rule FR Doc.

End Amendment Part Start Signature

Dated: March 12, 2002.

James B. Gulliford,

Regional Administrator, Region 7.

End Signature End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 02-6942 Filed 3-21-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P