[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13271-13272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-6942]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[FRL-7161-9]


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

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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551-7603.

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: 
Sec. 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,

[[Page 13272]]

provided 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).

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, 
Sulfur oxides, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 62, subpart CC-Nebraska, paragraph four is 
corrected to read:
    In rule FR Doc. 02-2119 published on January 29, 2002 (67 FR 4179), 
make the following correction. On page 4181, in the second column, the 
Sec. number ``62.6915'' is corrected to read ``62.6916.''

    Dated: March 12, 2002.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 02-6942 Filed 3-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P