Friday,

December
27,
2002
Part
VI
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
50
Stay
of
Authority
Under
40
CFR
50.9(
b)
Related
to
Applicability
of
1­
Hour
Ozone
Standard;
Proposed
Rule
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
05:
09
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
27DEP4.
SGM
27DEP4
79460
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
249
/
Friday,
December
27,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
1
Part
D
of
title
I
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
contains
a
number
of
subparts
concerning
implementation
of
the
NAAQS.
Subpart
1
applies
for
purposes
of
implementing
all
new
or
revised
NAAQS.
Subparts
2
 
5,
each
apply
to
one
or
more
specific
NAAQS.
At
the
time
EPA
promulgated
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS,
EPA
indicated
that
it
believed
subpart
1
was
the
only
subpart
that
would
apply
for
purposes
of
implementing
the
revised
8­
hour
NAAQS
and
stated
that
subpart
2,
which
specifically
addresses
ozone,
applied
only
for
purposes
of
implementing
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
50
[
FRL
 
7430
 
2]

Stay
of
Authority
Under
40
CFR
50.9(
b)
Related
to
Applicability
of
1­
Hour
Ozone
Standard
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
(
NPRM).

SUMMARY:
The
EPA
is
proposing
to
stay
its
authority
under
the
second
sentence
of
40
CFR
50.9(
b)
to
determine
that
an
area
has
attained
the
1­
hour
standard
(``
Proposed
Stay'')
and
that
the
1­
hour
standard
no
longer
applies.
The
EPA
proposes
that
the
stay
shall
be
effective
until
such
time
as
EPA
takes
final
action
in
a
subsequent
rulemaking
addressing
whether
the
second
sentence
of
40
CFR
50.9(
b)
should
be
modified
in
light
of
the
Supreme
Court's
decision
in
Whitman
v.
American
Trucking
Ass'ns,
Inc.,
531
U.
S.
457
(
2001),
remanding
EPA's
strategy
for
the
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
to
EPA
for
further
consideration.
In
the
subsequent
rulemaking
reconsidering
the
second
sentence
of
40
CFR
50.9(
b),
EPA
will
consider
and
address
any
comments
concerning
(
a)
which,
if
any,
implementation
activities
for
an
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
including
designations
and
classifications,
would
need
to
occur
before
EPA
would
determine
that
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
no
longer
applies
to
an
area,
and
(
b)
the
effect
of
revising
the
ozone
NAAQS
on
the
existing
1­
hour
ozone
designations.
DATES:
To
be
considered,
comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
January
27,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
should
be
submitted
(
in
duplicate,
if
possible)
to
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
6102T),
Attention:
Docket
Number
OAR
 
2002
 
0067,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA
West
(
Air
Docket),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Room:
B108,
Washington,
DC
20460,
telephone
(
202)
566
 
1742,
fax
(
202)
566
 
1741,
between
8:
30
a.
m.
and
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
To
mail
comments
through
Federal
Express,
UPS
or
other
courier
services,
the
mailing
address
is:
EPA
Docket
Center
(
Air
Docket,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Room:
B108,
Mail
Code:
6102T,
Washington,
DC
20004.
A
reasonable
fee
may
be
charged
for
copying.
Comments
and
data
may
also
be
submitted
electronically
by
following
the
instructions
under
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
of
this
document.
No
confidential
business
information
should
be
submitted
through
e­
mail.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Questions
concerning
this
NPRM
should
be
addressed
to
Annie
Nikbakht,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Air
Quality
Strategies
and
Standards
Division,
Ozone
Policy
and
Strategies
Group,
MD
 
C539
 
02,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
(
919)
541
 
5246.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
Electronic
Availability
 
The
official
record
for
this
proposed
rule,
as
well
as
the
public
version,
has
been
established
under
Docket
Number
OAR
 
2002
 
0067.
Submit
comments
by
e­
mail
to
address:
www.
epa.
gov/
rpas.

Table
of
Contents
I.
Background
II.
Summary
of
Today's
Action
III.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
I.
Background
A.
The
Revised
8­
Hour
Ozone
NAAQS
On
July
18,
1997,
the
EPA
promulgated
a
revised
8­
hour
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
(
NAAQS)
for
ozone.
The
rule
was
challenged
by
a
number
of
industry
groups
and
States
in
the
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
(
D.
C.
Circuit).
The
Court
granted
many
aspects
of
those
challenges
and
remanded
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
to
EPA.
American
Trucking
Ass'ns,
Inc.
v.
EPA,
175
F.
3d
1027
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1999)
(``
ATA'').
With
respect
to
EPA's
authority
to
implement
the
revised
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
the
Court
held
that
the
statute
was
clear
on
its
face
that
the
provisions
of
``
subpart
2''
applied
and
then
held
that
under
the
terms
of
the
statute,
the
8­
hour
standard
``
cannot
be
enforced.''
1
Id.
at
1048
 
1050,
1057.
The
Court
also
remanded
the
standard
to
EPA
on
the
ground
that,
under
EPA's
interpretation
of
its
authority
to
promulgate
the
NAAQS,
the
CAA
provided
an
unconstitutional
delegation
of
authority
to
EPA.
Id.
at
1034
 
1040.
Finally,
the
Court
held
that
EPA
had
failed
to
consider
whether
ground­
level
ozone
had
some
beneficial
effects,
in
particular,
whether
groundlevel
ozone
acted
as
a
shield
from
the
harmful
effects
of
ultraviolet
radiation.
Id.
at
1051
 
1053.
The
D.
C.
Circuit
largely
denied
EPA's
request
for
rehearing,
but
did
modify
its
decision
to
say
that
the
8­
hour
NAAQS
could
be
enforced,
but
only
in
conformity
with
certain
ozone­
specific
provisions
(
subpart
2)
enacted
in
1990.
ATA
II,
195
F.
3d
4
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1999).
The
EPA
requested
review
by
the
Supreme
Court
of
two
aspects
of
the
D.
C.
Circuit's
decision
 
the
delegation
and
implementation
issues.
The
Court
agreed
to
consider
the
case
and
on
February
27,
2000,
rejected
the
D.
C.
Circuit's
holding
that
EPA's
interpretation
of
the
CAA
resulted
in
an
unconstitutional
delegation
of
authority.
Whitman
v.
American
Trucking
Ass'ns,
Inc.,
531
U.
S.
457,
472
 
476
(
2001)
(
Whitman).
While
disagreeing
with
the
Court
of
Appeals
that
the
CAA
was
clear
on
its
face
that
subpart
2
applied
for
purposes
of
implementing
the
revised
ozone
standard,
the
Court
found
unreasonable
EPA's
assertion
that
subpart
2
was
inapplicable
for
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
The
Court
remanded
the
implementation
strategy
to
EPA
for
further
consideration.
Id.
at
481
 
486.

B.
EPA's
Revocation
Rules
Simultaneous
with
its
promulgation
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
on
July
18,
1997,
EPA
promulgated
a
final
rule
governing
the
continued
applicability
of
the
existing
1­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
40
CFR
50.9(
b).
The
relevant
language
in
40
CFR
50.9(
b)
provides:
``
The
1­
hour
standards
set
forth
in
this
section
will
no
longer
apply
to
an
area
once
EPA
determines
that
the
area
has
air
quality
meeting
the
1­
hour
standard.
Area
designations
are
codified
in
40
CFR
part
81.''
In
part,
EPA
based
this
approach
on
its
interpretation
that
the
provisions
of
subpart
2
of
part
D
of
title
I
of
the
CAA
applied
as
a
matter
of
law
for
purposes
of
implementing
the
1­
hour
ozone
NAAQS,
but
that
they
would
not
apply
for
purposes
of
implementing
the
revised
ozone
standard.
Thus,
EPA
believed
it
made
sense
to
delay
revocation
of
the
1­
hour
standard
until
such
time
as
the
provisions
of
subpart
2
would
no
longer
apply
and,
at
that
time,
revoke
the
1­
hour
standard.
Thus,
once
an
area
attained
the
1­
hour
standard
and
EPA
determined
the
1­
hour
standard
no
longer
applied
to
that
area,
the
provisions
of
subpart
2
would
also
no
longer
apply.
On
June
5,
1998,
EPA
issued
a
final
rule
determining
that
over
2,000
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
04:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
27DEP4.
SGM
27DEP4
79461
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
249
/
Friday,
December
27,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
2
In
addition
to
the
two
Revocation
Rules
that
were
challenged,
EPA
issued
a
third
Revocation
Rule
on
July
22,
1998
that
was
not
challenged,
(
63
FR
39432).
counties
had
attained
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
and
that,
therefore,
the
1­
hour
standard
and
the
associated
designation
for
that
standard
no
longer
applied
to
those
areas.
See
``
Identification
of
Ozone
Areas
Attaining
the
1­
Hour
Standard
to
Which
the
1­
Hour
Standard
is
No
Longer
Applicable,''
(
63
FR
31014,
June
5,
1998)
(``
Revocation
Rule'').
Subsequently,
on
August
3,
1998,
Environmental
Defense
and
the
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
(
collectively
``
Environmental
Defense'')
filed
a
petition
for
review
challenging
that
rule.
Environmental
Defense
v.
EPA
(
No.
98
 
1363,
D.
C.
Cir.).
On
June
9,
1999,
EPA
issued
a
final
rule
determining
that
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
no
longer
applied
in
an
additional
ten
areas.
Appalachian
Mountain
Club
filed
a
petition
for
review
challenging
that
action
August
9,
1999.
Appalachian
Mountain
Club
v.
EPA,
No.
99
 
1880
(
1st
Cir.).
Because
of
the
doubt
cast
on
the
8­
hour
standard
and
EPA's
authority
to
enforce
it
by
the
D.
C.
Circuit
in
the
ATA
case,
on
July
20,
2000,
EPA
issued
a
final
rule
rescinding
the
Revocation
Rules,
(
65
FR
45182,
July
20,
2000)
(
Rescission
Rule).
2
Thus,
EPA
reinstated
the
1­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
for
all
of
the
counties
for
which
EPA
previously
determined
that
the
1­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
no
longer
applied.
As
part
of
the
Rescission
Rule,
EPA
modified
the
second
sentence
in
40
CFR
50.9(
b)
to
provide:
``
In
addition,
after
the
8­
hour
standard
has
become
fully
enforceable
under
part
D
of
title
I
of
the
CAA
and
subject
to
no
further
legal
challenge,
the
1­
hour
standards
set
forth
in
this
section
will
no
longer
apply
to
an
area
once
EPA
determines
that
the
area
has
air
quality
meeting
the
1­
hour
standard.
Area
designations
and
classifications
with
respect
to
the
1­
hour
standards
are
codified
in
40
CFR
part
81.''

C.
Revocation
Rule
Litigation
The
parties
in
both
the
Environmental
Defense
and
the
Appalachian
Mountain
Club
cases
determined
to
stay
the
litigation
based
on
EPA's
Rescission
Rule
and
the
continued
litigation
regarding
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
and
EPA's
authority
to
implement
that
standard.
Following
the
Supreme
Court's
decision
in
the
Whitman
case,
the
parties
negotiated
a
Settlement
Agreement
that
provided
for
EPA
to
issue
this
proposal
to
stay
its
authority
under
40
CFR
50.9(
b)
while
EPA
considers
whether
to
modify
the
language
in
40
CFR
50.9(
b)
regarding
the
process
and
basis
for
revoking
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard.
See
67
FR
48896
(
July
26,
2002).
Environmental
Defense
and
Appalachian
Mountain
Club
have
agreed
to
dismiss
their
cases
if
EPA
issues
a
final
rule
staying
the
revocation
provision
in
40
CFR
50.9(
b)
until
such
time
as
EPA
considers
in
a
subsequent
rulemaking
whether
that
provision
should
be
modified
and,
in
the
final
stay,
commits
to
consider
and
address
in
the
subsequent
rulemaking
any
comments
concerning
(
a)
which,
if
any,
implementation
activities
for
a
revised
ozone
standard
(
including
but
not
limited
to
designation
and
classification
of
areas)
would
need
to
occur
before
EPA
would
determine
that
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
no
longer
applied
to
an
area,
and
(
b)
the
effect
of
revising
the
ozone
NAAQS
on
existing
designations
for
the
pollutant
ozone.

II.
Summary
of
Today's
Action
The
EPA
is
proposing
to
stay
its
authority
under
the
second
sentence
of
40
CFR
50.9(
b)
to
determine
that
an
area
has
attained
the
1­
hour
standard
and
that
the
1­
hour
standard
no
longer
applies.
The
EPA
proposes
that
the
stay
shall
be
effective
until
such
time
as
EPA
takes
final
agency
action
in
a
subsequent
rulemaking
addressing
whether
the
second
sentence
of
40
CFR
50.9(
b)
should
be
modified
in
light
of
the
Supreme
Court's
decision
in
Whitman
regarding
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
NAAQS.
In
developing
a
revised
8­
hour
implementation
strategy
consistent
with
the
Supreme
Court's
decision,
EPA
will
consider
and
address
any
comments
concerning
(
a)
which,
if
any,
implementation
activities
for
an
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
including
designations
and
classifications,
would
need
to
occur
before
EPA
would
determine
that
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
no
longer
applied
to
an
area,
and
(
b)
the
effect
of
revising
the
ozone
NAAQS
on
existing
designations
for
the
pollutant
ozone.
The
EPA
plans
to
consider
the
timeframe
and
basis
for
revoking
the
1­
hour
standard
in
the
implementation
rulemaking
that
it
plans
to
issue
in
response
to
the
Supreme
Court's
remand.
The
EPA
believes
that
it
is
appropriate
to
reconsider
this
issue
because,
at
the
time
EPA
promulgated
§
50.9(
b),
EPA
anticipated
that
subpart
2
would
not
apply
for
purposes
of
implementing
the
revised
ozone
standard.
It
makes
sense,
in
light
of
the
many
issues
that
are
now
being
considered
regarding
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard,
including
the
applicability
of
subpart
2
for
purposes
of
implementing
that
standard,
for
EPA
to
consider
simultaneously
the
most
effective
means
to
transition
from
implementation
of
the
1­
hour
standard
to
implementation
of
the
revised
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.

III.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
the
EPA
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
review
by
the
OMB
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Executive
Order
defines
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlement,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
it
has
been
determined
that
this
action
is
not
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
and
was
not
submitted
to
OMB
for
review.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
This
proposed
rule
does
not
contain
any
information
collection
requirements
which
require
OMB
approval
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.).

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)

The
RFA
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
noticeand
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
A
small
business
as
defined
in
the
Small
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
04:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
27DEP4.
SGM
27DEP4
79462
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
249
/
Friday,
December
27,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Business
Administration's
(
SBA)
regulations
at
13
CFR
12.201;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
forprofit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
This
action
will
not
impose
any
requirements
on
small
entities.
This
action
proposes
to
stay
EPA's
authority
under
the
second
sentence
of
40
CFR
50.9(
b)
to
determine
that
an
area
has
attained
the
1­
hour
standard
and
that
the
1­
hour
standard
no
longer
applies.
It
does
not
establish
requirements
applicable
to
small
entities.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments,
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
laws.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
Tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
This
proposed
action
also
does
not
impose
any
additional
enforceable
duty,
contain
any
unfunded
mandate,
or
impose
any
significant
or
unique
impact
on
small
governments
as
described
in
UMRA.
Because
today's
action
does
not
create
any
additional
mandates,
no
further
UMRA
analysis
is
needed.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
are
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
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.''
Under
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
State
and
local
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
The
EPA
also
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
State
law,
unless
the
Agency
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
This
proposed
action
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
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.
This
action
stays
the
language
of
40
CFR
50.9(
b)
regarding
EPA's
authority
to
take
action
and
imposes
no
additional
burdens
on
States
or
local
entities;
it
does
not
change
the
existing
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States
or
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
branches
of
government.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
this
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
this
proposed
rule.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(
65
FR
67249,
November
9,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
Tribal
implications.''
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
Tribal
implications,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175,
because
it
will
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.
Today's
action
does
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
the
communities
of
Indian
Tribal
governments,
and
does
not
impose
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
on
such
communities.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
proposed
rule.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks
The
EPA
interprets
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5
 
501
of
the
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
regulation.
This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045,
because
this
action
is
not
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866
and
there
are
no
environmental
health
risks
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
rule.

H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
Section
12
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
(
NTTAA)
of
1995
requires
Federal
agencies
to
evaluate
existing
technical
standards
when
developing
new
regulations.
To
comply
with
NTTAA,
EPA
must
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
04:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
27DEP4.
SGM
27DEP4
79463
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
249
/
Friday,
December
27,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
consider
and
use
``
voluntary
consensus
standards''
(
VCS)
if
available
and
applicable
when
developing
programs
and
policies
unless
doing
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
The
EPA
believes
that
VCS
are
inapplicable
to
this
proposed
action.
Today's
proposed
action
does
not
require
the
public
to
perform
activities
conducive
to
the
use
of
VCS.

J.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
Under
Executive
Order
12898,
each
Federal
agency
must
make
achieving
environmental
justice
part
of
its
mission
by
identifying
and
addressing,
as
appropriate,
disproportionately
high
and
adverse
human
health
or
environmental
effects
of
its
programs,
policies,
and
activities
on
minorities
and
low­
income
populations.
Today's
proposed
action
to
stay
EPA's
authority
under
40
CFR
50.9(
b)
related
to
applicability
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
does
not
have
a
disproportionate
adverse
effect
on
minorities
and
low­
income
populations.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
50
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Carbon
monoxide,
Lead,
Nitrogen
dioxide,
Ozone,
Particulate
matter,
Sulfur
oxides.

Dated:
December
19,
2002.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.

For
the
reasons
set
forth
in
the
preamble,
part
50
of
chapter
I
of
title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:
PART
50
 
AMENDED
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
50
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7410,
et
seq.

2.
Section
50.9
is
proposed
to
be
amended
by
adding
paragraph
(
c)
to
read
as
follows:

§
50.9
National
1­
hour
primary
and
secondary
ambient
air
quality
standards
for
ozone.

*
*
*
*
*
(
c)
EPA's
authority
under
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
to
determine
that
an
area
has
attained
the
1­
hour
standard
and
that
the
1­
hour
standard
no
longer
applies
is
stayed
until
such
time
as
EPA
issues
a
final
rule
revising
or
reinstating
such
authority.

[
FR
Doc.
02
 
32577
Filed
12
 
26
 
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
VerDate
Dec<
13>
2002
04:
40
Dec
27,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
27DEP4.
SGM
27DEP4
