[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 137 (Monday, July 17, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43994-43995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-18024]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AL53-200019(a); FRL-6735-6]
Approval and Promulgation of State Plans--Alabama: Approval of
Revisions to the Alabama State Implementation Plan: Transportation
Conformity Interagency Memorandum of Agreement; Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2000, a document approving
the transportation conformity rule submitted by the Alabama Department
of Environmental Management for the State of Alabama. The rule is being
clarified and corrected to remove a sentence that was inadvertently
included in the Federal Register document.
DATES: This correction is effective on July 17, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler at (404) 562-9042,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The May 11, 2000, (65 FR 30358-30362)
rulemaking included a statement in the first full paragraph in the
first column on page 30360 that reads ``The MOA is enforceable against
the parties by their consent in the MOA to allow the Attorney General
for the State of Alabama to sue any or all of the agencies for specific
performance of other relief on behalf of the citizens of Alabama in
parren patrial.'' The Federal requirements for conformity do not
require that the Attorney General for a state have this legal
authority. Since the State of Alabama's submittal does not contain any
such provisions for the Alabama Attorney General, the preamble language
is amended to delete this sentence in its entirety.
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 procedure 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 good cause for making today's rule final
[[Page 43995]]
without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because we are
merely correcting the preamble language in a previous action. Thus,
notice and public procedure are unnecessary. We find that this
constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
Administrative Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Because the
agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not
subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary
Information section above, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). In addition, this action does
not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a
significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and
204 of UMRA. 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 governments, as specified
by Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also
is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically significant. This correction 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. The rule also does not involve special
consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this
rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors
and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive
Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) 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
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. 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. 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
As stated previously, EPA had made such a good cause finding, including
the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of July 17,
2000. 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 correction to the identification
of plan for Alabama is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Dated: June 30, 2000.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 00-18024 Filed 7-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P