Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21347

(d) EPA approved State SourceSpecific Requirements.

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Source name Permit/order or registration number

State effective date EPA approval date 40 CFR part 52 citation

Norfolk Naval Base-Exchange Service Station ................... [NONE] 8/6/79 8/17/81

46 FR 41499

52.2465(c)(41).

Reynolds Metal Co.—Rolling Mill ........................................ DSE–597–87 9/30/87 8/20/90

55 FR 33904

52.2465(c)(92).

Aqualon (Hercules) Company ............................................. 50363 9/26/90 11/1/91

56 FR 56159

52.2465(c)(93).

Nabisco Brands, Inc ............................................................ DTE–179–91 4/24/91 3/6/92

57 FR 8080

52.2465(c)(95).

Burlington Industries ............................................................ 30401 11/19/91 3/18/92

57 FR 9388

52.2465(c)(96).

Reynolds Metals Co.—Bellwood ......................................... DSE–413A–86 10/31/86 6/13/96

61 FR 29963

52.2465(c)(110).

Reynolds Metals Co.—South .............................................. DSE–412A–86

Philip Morris, Inc.—Bended Leaf Facility ............................ 50080 2/27/86 10/14/97

62 FR 53277

52.2465(c)(120).

Philip Morris, Inc.—Park 500 Facility .................................. 50722 3/26/97

Philip Morris, Inc.—Richmond Manufacturing Center ......... 50076 7/13/96

Virginia Electric and Power Co.—Innsbrook Technical

Center.

50396 5/30/96

Hercules, Inc.—Aqualon Division ........................................ V–0163–96 7/12/96

City of Hopewell—Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility.50735 5/30/96

Allied Signal, Inc.—Hopewell Plant ..................................... 50232 3/26/97 10/14/97

62 FR 53277

52.2465(c)(121).

Allied Signal, Inc.—Chesterfield Plant ................................ V–0114–96 5/20/96

Bear Island Paper Co. L.P .................................................. V–135–96 7/12/96

Stone Container Corp.—Hopewell Mill ............................... 50370 5/30/96

E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co.—Spruance Plant ........... V–0117–96 5/30/96 10/14/97

62 FR 53277

52.2465(c)(121).

ICI Americas Inc.—Films Division—Hopewell Site ............. 50418 5/30/96

Tuscarora, Inc ..................................................................... 71814 6/5/96 1/22/99

64 FR 3425

52.2465(c)(128).

(e) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 00–9535 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 031–0174a; FRL–6580–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Lake

County Air Quality Management

District and San Joaquin Valley Unified

Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action on revisions to the California

State Implementation Plan. The

revisions concern rules from the

following: Lake County Air Quality

Management District (LCAQMD) and

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD).

The rules control particulate matter

(PM) emissions from open burning or

processes identified by a weight rate

throughput. This approval action will

incorporate these rules into the

federally-approved SIP. The intended

effect of approving these rules is to

regulate emissions of PM in accordance

with the requirements of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA). Thus,

EPA is finalizing the approval of these

rules into the California SIP under

provisions of the CAA regarding EPA

action on SIP submittals, SIPs for

national primary and secondary ambient

air quality standards, and plan

requirements for attainment and

nonattainment areas.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 20,

2000 without further notice, unless EPA

receives relevant adverse comments by

May 22, 2000. If EPA receives such

comments, then it will publish a timely

withdrawal in the Federal Register

informing the public that this rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be

submitted in writing to Andrew Steckel

at the Region IX office listed below.

Copies of the rules and EPA’s evaluation

report for the rules are available for

public inspection at EPA’s Region IX

office during normal business hours.

Copies of the submitted rules are

available for inspection at the following

locations:

Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

Lake County Air Quality Management

District, 883 Lakeport Boulevard,

Lakeport, CA 95453.

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District, 1990 East

Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al

Petersen, Rulemaking Office, (AIR–4),

Air Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105, Telephone: (415) 744–1135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rules being approved into the

California SIP include: LCAQMD

21348 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1On July 18, 1997 EPA promulgated revised and

new standards for PM–10 and PM–2.5 (62 FR

38651). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.

Circuit in American Trucking Assoc., Inc., et al. v.

USEPA, No. 97–1440 (May 14, 1999) issued an

opinion that, among other things, vacated the new

standards for PM–10 that were published on July

18, 1997 and became effective September 16, 1997.

However, the PM–10 standards promulgated on July

1, 1987 were not an issue in this litigation, and the

Court’s decision does not affect the applicability of

those standards in this area. Codification of those

standards continue to be recorded at 40 CFR 50.6.

In the notice promulgating the new PM–10

standards, the EPA Administrator decided that the

previous PM–10 standards that were promulgated

on July 1, 1987, and provisions associated with

them, would continue to apply in areas subject to

the 1987 PM–10 standards until certain conditions

specified in 40 CFR 50.6(d) are met. See 62 FR at

38701. EPA has not taken any action under 40 CFR

50.6(d) for this area. Today’s proposed action

relates only to the CAA requirements concerning

the PM–10 standards as originally promulgated in

1987.

2The present submittal of the SJVUAPCD PM–10

Attainment Demonstration Plan, May 15, 1997,

must be revised in order to be approved by EPA.

3EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

Section (Rule) 226.5, Fire Season-Burn

Ban; LCAQMD Section (Rule) 431.5,

(Non-Agricultural Burning); LCAQMD

Section (Rule) 433, (ExemptionResidential); Lake County Section (Rule)

1150, Wildland Vegetation Management

Burning; and SJVUAPCD Rule 4202,

Particulate Matter-Emission Rate. These

rules were submitted by the California

Air Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on

July 23, 1999, March 26, 1990, March

10, 1998, February 7, 1989, and

September 28, 1994, respectively.

II. Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated

a list of total suspended particulate

(TSP) nonattainment areas under the

provisions of the 1977 Clean Air Act,

that included the San Joaquin Valley Air

Basin (43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305). On

July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24672) EPA replaced

the TSP standards with new PM

standards applying only to PM up to 10

microns in diameter (PM–10).1 On

November 15, 1990, amendments to the

1977 CAA were enacted (Public Law

101–549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42

U.S.C. 7401–7671q). On the date of

enactment of the 1990 CAA

Amendments, PM–10 areas meeting the

qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of

the Act were designated nonattainment

by operation of law and classified as

moderate or serious pursuant to section

188(a). Lake County was not among the

areas designated nonattainment. On

February 8, 1993, EPA classified four

nonattainment areas as serious

nonattainment, including the San

Joaquin Valley Planning Area, which

now comprises the SJVUAPCD.

Section 189(a) of the CAA requires

moderate and above PM–10

nonattainment areas to adopt reasonably

available control measures (RACM),

including reasonably available control

technology (RACT) for stationary

sources of PM–10. Section 189(b) of the

CAA requires serious nonattainment

areas to adopt best available control

measures (BACM) for significant sources

of PM–10, including best available

control technology (BACT). Therefore,

SJVUAPCD must at a minimum meet

the requirements of RACM. SJVUAPCD

must also adopt BACM. However, EPA

is deferring decision on the specific

BACM requirements until EPA acts on

SJVUAPCD’s BACM plan 2 at a later date

and will evaluate the rule by the

requirements of RACM.

In response to section 110(a) and part

D of the Act, the State of California

submitted many PM–10 rules for

incorporation into the California SIP,

including the rules being acted on in

this document. This document

addresses EPA’s direct-final action for

the following:

LCAQMD Sections (Rules) 226.5,

431.5, 433, and 1150 were adopted

September 13, 1988, June 13, 1989, July

15, 1997, and December 6, 1988,

respectively; submitted by the State of

California for incorporation into the SIP

on July 23, 1999, March 26, 1990, March

10, 1998, and February 7, 1989,

respectively; and found to be complete

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V 3 on August 24, 1999, June

20, 1990, May 21, 1998, and May 5,

1989, respectively.

SJVUAPCD Rule 4202, Particulate

Matter-Emission Rate, was adopted

December 17, 1992, submitted by the

State of California for incorporation into

the SIP on September 28, 1994, and

found to be complete on November 22,

1994.

PM emissions can harm human health

and the environment. These rules were

adopted as part of LCAQMD and

SJVUAPCD efforts to maintain the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for PM–10. The following is

EPA’s evaluation and final action for

these rules.

III. EPA Evaluation and Action

In determining the approvability of a

PM–10 rule, EPA must evaluate the rule

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 and part D of the CAA

and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). EPA must also

ensure that rules are enforceable and

strengthen or maintain the SIP’s control

strategy.

The statutory provisions relating to

RACM/RACT and BACM/BACT are

discussed in EPA’s ‘‘General Preamble,’’

which give the Agency’s preliminary

views on how EPA intends to act on

SIPs submitted under Title I of the CAA.

See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), 57 FR

18070 (April 28, 1992) and 59 FR 41998

(August 16, 1994). In this rulemaking

action, EPA is applying these policies to

this submittal, taking into consideration

the specific factual issues presented.

EPA previously reviewed rules from

LCAQMD and SJVUAPCD and

incorporated them into the federally

approved SIP pursuant to section

110(k)(3) of the CAA.

There is currently no version of

LCAQMD Section (Rule) 226.5, Fire

Season-Burn Ban, in the SIP. This is a

new rule that strengthens the SIP by

prohibiting open burning from June 1

through the end of the fire season.

On October 23, 1989, EPA approved

into the SIP a version of LCAQMD

Section (Rule) 431.5, (Non-Agricultural

Burning). Submitted Section (Rule)

431.5 replaces the SIP-approved rule

and includes the following significant

change that strengthens the SIP:

• Extends the prohibition against

non-agricultural open burning from June

1 to the end of the fire season to include

No-Burn Days designated by the APCO

or by the CARB.

On October 23, 1989, EPA approved

into the SIP a version of LCAQMD

Section (Rule) 433, (Non-Agricultural

Burning). Submitted Section (Rule) 433

replaces the SIP-approved rule and

includes the following significant

change that strengthens the SIP:

• Adds a prohibition against using

‘‘burn barrels’’ for residential open

burning.

There is currently no version of

LCAQMD Section (Rule) 1150, Wildland

Vegetation Management Burning, in the

SIP. This is a new rule that strengthens

the SIP by regulating wildland

vegetation management burning,

including requiring a burn plan for over

20 acres.

On various dates, EPA approved into

the SIP versions of Particulate MatterEmission Rate rules for the eight

counties that now comprise the

SJVUAPCD. Submitted Rule 4202,

Particulate Matter-Emission Rate,

replaces these rules and includes no

significant changes from the SIP

versions from the eight counties. EPA

has determined that submitted Rule

4202 meets the requirements of RACM.

EPA has evaluated the submitted

rules and has determined that they are

consistent with the CAA, EPA

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21349

regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore,

the following rules are being approved

under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as

meeting the requirements of section

110(a) and part D:

• LCAQMD Section (Rule) 226.5, Fire

Season-Burn Ban (submitted

July 23, 1999).

• LCAQMD Section (Rule) 431.5,

(Non-Agricultural Burning) (submitted

March 26, 1990).

• LCAQMD Section (Rule) 433,

(Exemption-Residential) (submitted

March 10, 1998).

• LCAQMD Section (Rule) 1150,

Wildland Vegetation Management

Burning (submitted February 7, 1989).

• SJVUAPCD Rule 4202, Particulate

Matter-Emission Rate (submitted

September 28, 1994).

A more detailed evaluation can be

found in EPA’s evaluation reports for

these rules.

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in the proposed

rules section of this Federal Register

publication, EPA is publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to approve the SIP revision

should relevant adverse comments be

filed. This rule will be effective June 20,

2000 without further notice unless the

Agency receives relevant adverse

comments by May 22, 2000.

If the EPA receives such comments,

then EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal informing the public that

the rule will not take effect. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on the proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this rule. Any parties

interested in commenting on this rule

should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, the public is

advised that this rule will be effective

on June 20, 2000 and no further action

will be taken on the proposed rule.

IV. 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. 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 approves preexisting requirements under state law

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 (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

approves 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. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. 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, EPA has 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, 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 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. 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 Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by June 20, 2000.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time 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 section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 30, 2000.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(177)(i)(F)(2),

(c)(179)(i)(F)(2), (c)(199)(i)(D)(7),

(c)(254)(i)(J)(2), and (c)(268)(i)(C) to read

as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(177) * * *

(i) * * *

(F) * * *

21350 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(2) Section (Rule) 1150, adopted on

December 6, 1988.

* * * * *

(179) * * *

(i) * * *

(F) * * *

(2) Section (Rule) 431.5, adopted on

June 13, 1989.

* * * * *

(199) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) * * *

(7) Rule 4202, adopted on December

17, 1992.

* * * * *

(254) * * *

(i) * * *

(J) * * *

(2) Sections (Rules) 433, adopted on

July 15, 1997.

* * * * *

(268) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) Lake County Air Quality

Management District.

(1) Section (Rule) 226.5, adopted on

September 13, 1988.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–9650 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[SIP NOS. MT–001–0012; MT–001–0013;

MT–001–0014; MT–001–0015 FRL–6582–4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Montana; Emergency Episode Plan,

Columbia Falls, Butte and Missoula

Particulate Matter State

Implementation Plans, Missoula

Carbon Monoxide State

Implementation Plan; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: The EPA published in the

Federal Register on December 6, 1999,

a document that, among other things,

approved updates to Montana’s State

Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to

the Emergency Episode Plan; Columbia

Falls, Butte and Missoula Particulate

Matter [particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM–10)]

SIPS; and the Missoula Carbon

Monoxide (CO) Plan. In the December 6,

1999, rule, EPA inadvertently

referenced an incorrect citation to

Missouri’s SIP in the Code of Federal

Regulations. EPA is correcting the

citation with this document.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

April 21, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurie Ostrand, EPA, Region VIII, (303)

312–6437.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean EPA.

Our December 6, 1999 (64 FR 68034)

rulemaking indicated that on November

3, 1995 (60 FR 55792) we approved

revisions to Montana’s prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD)

regulations. With the November 3, 1995

document we inadvertently codified the

revisions into 40 CFR 52.1320(c)(42) in

lieu of CFR 52.1370(c)(42). Our

December 6, 1999 document indicated

that we were removing these revisions

from 40 CFR 52.1320(c)(42) and adding

them to 40 CFR 52.1370(c)(42).

However, when we published the

December 6, 1999 rule, we did not

realize that on June 29, 1999 (64 FR

34717) 40 CFR 52.1320 had been

redesignated as 40 CFR 52.1322.

Therefore, our December 6, 1999

document should have removed 40 CFR

52.1322(c)(42) and not 40 CFR

52.1320(c)(42).

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).

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 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) (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

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 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

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,