[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 95 (Friday, May 16, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26495-26497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-12473]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[DC052-7007, MD143-3102, VA129-5065; FRL-7499-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia; Post 1996 Rate-of-Progress 
Plans and One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document corrects an error and clarifies the preamble 
language of EPA's conditional approval of the severe ozone 
nonattainment area State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for the 
Metropolitan Washington severe ozone nonattainment area. This document 
also corrects several typographical errors in the preamble language of 
this conditional approval.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 19, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-2179, or 
by e-mail at [email protected].

[[Page 26496]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' or 
``our'' are used we mean EPA.

Date Conditional Approval Might Convert to Disapproval

    On April 17, 2003, (68 FR 19106), we published a final rulemaking 
action announcing our conditional approval of severe ozone 
nonattainment area State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the 
Metropolitan Washington severe ozone nonattainment area. In the final 
rule language which is found on page 19131 of the April 17, 2003, final 
rule, EPA conditionally approved each Washington area jurisdiction's 
severe area SIP revisions contingent on that jurisdiction submitting 
SIP revisions by April 17, 2004 that satisfy certain conditions 
enumerated in the final rule text. In the second sentence of the Final 
Action section of the preamble on page 19130 in the first column of 
this April 17, 2003, final rule, EPA inadvertently stated that 
``[s]hould the Washington area jurisdictions fail to fulfill these 
conditions by May 19, 2003, this conditional approval will convert to a 
disapproval pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(k).'' EPA 
intended that if a Washington area jurisdiction should fail to meet any 
condition for approval within one-year from the publication date of the 
final rule, i.e., by April 17, 2004, the conditional approval would 
convert to a disapproval pursuant to CAA section 110(k). EPA did not 
intend that the date triggering disapproval pursuant to 110(k) of the 
CAA would be the May 19, 2003, effective date of the April 17, 2003 
final action, which is nearly eleven months before the due date set 
forth in the text of the April 17, 2003, final rule. As stated above, 
EPA intended that should the Washington area jurisdictions fail to 
fulfill these conditions by April 17, 2004, the conditional approval 
will convert to a disapproval pursuant to CAA section 110(k).
    In the preamble to the final rule published on April 17, 2003, on 
page 19130, in the first column, the second sentence of the Final 
Action section is corrected to read: ``Should the Washington area 
jurisdictions fail to fulfill these conditions by April 17, 2004, this 
conditional approval will convert to a disapproval pursuant to CAA 
section 110(k).''

Typographical Errors

    In the preamble to the final rule published in the Federal Register 
on April 17, 2003, on page 19120 in the second column, and on page 
19122 in the first column, EPA incorrectly cited as 68 FR 3210 the 
volume and page numbers for the January 24, 2003, final action that 
reclassified the Washington area to severe nonattainment. The correct 
citation is 68 FR 3410, January 24, 2003.
    In the preamble to the final rule published in the Federal Register 
on April 17, 2003, on page 19109 in the first column, and on page 19129 
in the third column, EPA incorrectly stated the proposed rule for the 
April 17, 2003, final rule was published on February 4, 2003. The 
correct date is February 3, 2003 (68 FR 5246).
    In the preamble to the final rule published in the Federal Register 
on April 17, 2003, on page 19126 in the third column, EPA incorrectly 
stated the publication date for 67 FR 21867 as May 1, 2000. The correct 
date is May 1, 2002 (67 FR 21867).
    In the preamble to the final rule published in the Federal Register 
on April 17, 2003, on page 19117 in the first column, we presented a 
summary of air quality data to date. On page 19117 in the first column, 
EPA stated that ``[a]nother one of these seven has data for the last 
123 days of the ozone season (July 1, 2003, through October 31, 2003 
inclusive)''. EPA was referring to monitoring data for July 1, 2002 
through October 31, 2002 not for July 1, 2003, through October 31, 
2003.
    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 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. We find that this constitutes good cause 
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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. 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)). Because 
the agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not 
subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative 
Procedures 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) (Pub. L. 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 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), nor 
will it 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 technical 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

[[Page 26497]]

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 May 19, 2003. 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 April 17, 2003, final rule (68 FR 19106) for the 
District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia is not a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Dated: May 9, 2003.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional, Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 03-12473 Filed 5-15-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P