This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 03/06/2015 at 08:45 am.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule; correction.
On May 14, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule to approve a request submitted on June 21, 2012, by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, through Georgia Environmental Protection Division, to redesignate the Rome, Georgia, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the “Rome Area” or “Area”) to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Start Printed Page 12342Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This action corrects an inadvertent error in the preamble of EPA's May 14, 2014, final rule related to the redesignation of the Rome Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
This action is effective March 9, 2015.
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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bell may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9088 or via electronic mail at email@example.com.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
This action corrects an error in the preamble of EPA's May 14, 2014, final rule related to the redesignation of the Rome Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 79 FR 27493. The Rome Area is comprised of one county, Floyd County, in Georgia. In the “Final Action” section of the preamble at 79 FR 27495, EPA inadvertently stated that the final rule was changing the legal designation of “Bibb County and a portion of Monroe County” to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is now correcting that inadvertent error in the preamble by replacing the phrase “Bibb County and a portion of Monroe County” with “Floyd County.” The regulatory text associated with the May 14, 2014, final rule at 40 CFR 52.570 and 81.311 correctly identifies “Floyd County” as the redesignated county associated with the Rome Area. See 79 FR 27496.
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 procedures are unnecessary for today's action because this action merely corrects the aforementioned inadvertent error in the preamble of EPA's May 14, 2014, final rule and has no substantive impact on EPA's May 14, 2014, action. In addition, EPA can identify no particular reason why the public would be interested in having the opportunity to comment on the correction prior to this action being finalized because this correction does not change or reopen EPA's redesignation of the Rome Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
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 action, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the action takes effect. Rather, today's action merely corrects the inadvertent error identified above. 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.
IV. 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 imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this action 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 action merely corrects an inadvertent error in the preamble to EPA's May 14, 2014, final rulemaking, 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).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. 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 does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action 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. In addition, this action does not involve technical standards, 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 action also 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 action 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 May 8, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the Start Printed Page 12343time 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects
- Environmental protection
- Air pollution control
- Incorporation by reference
- Intergovernmental relations
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Particulate matter
- Environmental protection
- Air pollution control
- National parks
- Wilderness areas
Dated: February 13, 2015.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2015-05071 Filed 3-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P