[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