[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 78 (Friday, April 21, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21350-21351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9926]


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

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,

[[Page 21351]]

including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of 
April 21, 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 Missouri is not a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    April 7, 2000.
Patricia D. Hull,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

    In rule FR Doc. 99-31536, published on December 6, 1999 (64 FR 
68034), make the following corrections:

PART 52--[CORRECTED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart AA--Missouri [Corrected]

    2. On page 68038, in the third column, 3 lines from the top of the 
column, correct ``Sec. 52.1320'' to read ``Sec. 52.1322''.

    3. On page 68038, in the third column, in amendatory instruction 2, 
correct ``52.1320(c)(42)'' to read ``52.1322(c)(42)''.

[FR Doc. 00-9926 Filed 4-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P