Overview
Title
Review of Final Rule Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act; Correction
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA fixed a mistake in its rules about air pollution that was like spelling a word wrong, and they wanted to make sure everyone knows about the change right away so there’s no confusion.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a correction to a previously published rule regarding the classification of major and area sources of air pollution under the Clean Air Act. This correction fixes a typographical error in the regulatory text, changing an incorrect reference to a specific regulation with the correct reference. The correction ensures clarity and consistency in the rule without changing its original intent or imposing new requirements. The rule is effective immediately to prevent confusion, as the public had already been informed of the content through earlier notices.
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making corrections to the Review of Final Rule Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on September 10, 2024. Following publication of this final rule, the EPA discovered an inadvertent typographical error in the regulatory text and is correcting the error in this action.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a type of administrative correction known as a "final rule; correction." This correction is part of the regulatory framework under the Clean Air Act, which addresses air quality and pollution sources in the United States.
General Summary
The document focuses on fixing an inadvertent typographical error in a previously published rule concerning the classification of major and area sources of air pollutants. Specifically, it corrects a reference error regarding certain hazardous air pollutant regulations. The rule was mistakenly citing "subpart HHH" instead of "subpart MMM," which corresponds to different categories of hazardous air pollutant standards. The correction is important for legal precision and ensures the rule aligns with its intended regulatory guidance.
Significant Issues and Concerns
A major issue with the document is its use of complex regulatory language, which can be difficult for individuals without legal or environmental regulatory expertise to decipher. Terms like "40 CFR 63.1(c)(6)(iii)" and references to subparts may not be immediately understandable to a general audience. Furthermore, the document refers to legal procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act, such as the "good cause" exemption, which allows the rule to become effective immediately. This concept requires explanation for those unfamiliar with regulatory processes.
Another concern is the repetition of the error and correction details throughout the text. While precision is necessary for legal documents, the repetitive nature of explaining the reference change could potentially confuse those not accustomed to navigating such texts.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this document is unlikely to have a direct impact on the general public, as it deals primarily with correcting a technical reference within an existing regulation. However, properly maintained regulations help ensure that air quality standards are clear and enforceable, which indirectly supports public health and environmental protection.
For individuals and entities regulated under the Clean Air Act, the correction helps avoid ambiguity. Ensuring that businesses and regulatory bodies are working with accurate information prevents administrative mishaps and potential legal challenges, which can contribute to a more predictable regulatory environment.
Positive and Negative Impacts on Stakeholders
For regulated entities, such as companies involved in the production or handling of hazardous substances, the correction ensures they are guided by the correct standards and obligations. This fosters compliance and helps in avoiding unnecessary legal disputes due to misinterpretation.
On the other hand, entities not closely following these updates might face difficulties in keeping up with rapid changes, especially given the immediate effectiveness of the correction. Although no new regulatory requirements are being imposed, the expediency eliminates the usual period for companies to prepare for compliance.
In sum, while this document primarily serves as an administrative adjustment, its significance lies in maintaining the integrity and clarity of environmental regulations, indirectly benefiting both public health and businesses by supporting a well-defined regulatory landscape.
Issues
• The document does not contain any specific spending information, so it is not possible to identify potentially wasteful spending or spending that favors particular organizations or individuals.
• The document uses specialized legal and regulatory language, which might be complex or difficult for general audiences to understand, especially terms like '40 CFR 63.1(c)(6)(iii)', 'subpart HHH', 'subpart MMM', etc.
• The reference to the Administrative Procedure Act and citations like 'Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996)' might be difficult for non-experts to follow without additional context or explanation.
• The repetition of the error and correction details, especially the reference change from 'subpart HHH' to 'subpart MMM', while necessary, may be excessive and potentially confusing to readers who are not familiar with regulatory documents.
• The effectiveness of the correction and its immediate implementation without the usual 30-day delay due to 'good cause' might require further explanation for the general public unfamiliar with the rulemaking process.