Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; technical amendment.
On July 5, 2007, EPA published in the Federal Register a final rule redesignating the Kentucky portion of the bi-state Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA inadvertently omitted the State effective date in the regulatory text in the final rule for the Louisville 8-hour ozone maintenance plan. This action corrects the July 5, 2007, final rule by adding a State effective date of September 29, 2006.
This action is effective August 24, 2007.
Copies of the documentation used in the action being corrected are available for inspection during normal business hours at the following location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heidi LeSane, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9074. Ms. LeSane can also be reached via electronic mail at Lesane.firstname.lastname@example.org.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On July 5, 2007 (72 FR 36601), EPA published in the Federal Register a final rule redesignating the Kentucky portion of the bi-state Louisville 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On page 33604 in the table titled “EPA-Approved Kentucky Non-Regulatory Provisions” under the subject “State submittal date/effective date” for the entry “Louisville 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan” EPA inadvertently omitted the State effective date. This omission is being corrected by adding the State effective date of September 29, 2006.
EPA has determined that today's action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. Public notice and comment for this action are unnecessary because today's action to add the State effective date of the Louisville 8-hour ozone maintenance plan has no substantive impact on EPA's July 5, 2007, redesignation approval. That is, the addition of the State effective date makes no substantive difference to EPA's redesignation analysis as set out in our July 5, 2007, rule, and merely corrects an error made in that prior rulemaking. In addition, EPA can identify no particular reason why the public would be interested in being notified of the correction of this error or in having the opportunity to comment on the correction prior to this action being finalized, since this correction action does not change the redesignation approval and merely states when the Louisville 8-hour ozone maintenance plan was State effective.
EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of this action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule merely corrects an inadvertent omission by adding the State effective date of the Louisville 8-hour ozone maintenance plan. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of this action.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 corrects an inadvertent omission 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 inadvertent omission by adding the State effective date of the Louisville 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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). This action merely corrects an inadvertent omission, does not impose any new requirements on sources or allow a State to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, 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, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and because the Agency does not have reason to believe that the rule concerns an environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence Start Printed Page 48559of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies 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. 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, 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. 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. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 23, 2007. 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) of the CAA.)Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
- Environmental protection
- Air pollution control
- Intergovernmental relations
- Nitrogen dioxide
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Volatile organic compounds
Dated: August 16, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
is amended as follows:End Amendment Part Start Part
PART 52—[AMENDED]End Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Subpart S—KentuckyStart Amendment Part
2. Section 52.920(e) is amended by revising the entry for “Louisville 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan” to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(e) * * *
|Name of non-regulatory SIP provision||Applicable geographic or nonattainment area||State submittal date/effective date||EPA approval date||Explanation|
|* * * * * * *|
|Louisville 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan||Bullitt County, Jefferson County, Oldham County||09/26/2006||07/05/07, 72 FR 36601|
[FR Doc. E7-16804 Filed 8-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P