Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 40 / Thursday, March 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 9285 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Proposed Amendments to the 

Regulations 

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 1—INCOME TAXES 

Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 1 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

Par. 2. Section 1.368–2 is amended by 

adding paragraph (l)(2)(iv) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.368–2 Definition of terms. 

* * * * * 

[The text of this proposed amendment 

to § 1.368–2(l)(2)(iv) is the same as the 

text of § 1.368–2T(l)(2)(iv) published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register]. 

Kevin M. Brown, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E7–3533 Filed 2–28–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0090; FRL–8282–8] 

RIN 2060–AO05 

Final Extension of the Deferred 

Effective Date for 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for the Denver Early Action 

Compact 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

extend the deferred effective date of the 

air quality designation for the Denver 

Early Action Compact (EAC) from July 

1, 2007 to April 15, 2008. Early Action 

Compact areas have agreed to reduce 

ground-level ozone pollution earlier 

than the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires. 

On November 29, 2006, EPA extended 

the deferred effective date for the 

Denver EAC area from December 31, 

2006, to July 1, 2007. In the same 

rulemaking, EPA also extended the 

deferred effective date for 13 other EAC 

areas from December 31, 2006 to April 

15, 2008. In the November 29, 2006, 

final rulemaking, EPA noted that there 

were issues with Denver’s EAC that 

would need to be addressed before EPA 

would extend their deferral until April 

15, 2008. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 2, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2003–0090, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–

0090, Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, Northwest, Washington, DC 

20460. Please include two copies. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver your 

comments to: Air Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 3334, 

Washington, DC 20004, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–

0090. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–

0090. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment with any disk 

or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot 

read your comment due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic files 

should avoid the use of special 

characters, any form of encryption, and 

be free of any defects or viruses. For 

further information about EPA’s public 

docket visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at http://www.epa.gov/ 

epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. A 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Barbara Driscoll, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code C539–04, Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27711, phone number (919) 541–

1051 or by e-mail at: 

driscoll.barbara@epa.gov or Mr. David 

Cole, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail Code C304–05, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

phone number (919) 541–5565 or by email at: cole.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

This action applies only to the Denver 

Early Action Compact (EAC) area. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comment for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
9286 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 40 / Thursday, March 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. Also, send an additional 

copy clearly marked as above not only 

to the Air docket but to: Roberto 

Morales, c/o OAQPS Document Control 

Officer, (C339–03), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0014. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

C. How Is This Notice Organized? 

The information presented in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

Outline 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

C. How Is This Notice Organized? 

II. What Is the Purpose of This Document? 

III. What Action Has EPA Taken to Date for 

Early Action Compact Areas? 

IV. What Progress Has the Denver Early 

Action Compact Area Made? 

V. What Is This Proposed Action for the 

Denver Early Action Compact Area? 

VI. What Is EPA’s Schedule for Taking 

Further Action for Early Action Compact 

Areas and Specifically for the Denver 

Early Action Compact Area? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

II. What Is the Purpose of This 

Document? 

The purpose of this document is to 

propose extending the deferred effective 

date of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

designation for the Denver EAC area 

from July 1, 2007 to April 15, 2008. 

III. What Action Has EPA Taken to 

Date for Early Action Compact Areas? 

This section discusses EPA’s actions 

to date with respect to deferring the 

effective date of nonattainment 

designations for certain areas of the 

country that are participating in the 

EAC program. The EPA’s April 30, 2004 

air quality designation rule (69 FR 

23858) provides a description of the 

compact approach, the requirements for 

areas participating in the program and 

the impacts of the program on those 

areas. 

On December 31, 2002, we entered 

into compacts with 33 communities. To 

receive the first deferral, these EAC 

areas agreed to reduce ground-level 

ozone pollution earlier than the CAA 

would require. The EPA agreed to 

provide an initial deferral of the 

nonattainment designations for those 

EAC areas that did not meet the 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) as of April 30, 

2004, and to provide subsequent 

deferrals contingent on performance visa`-vis certain milestones. On December 

16, 2003 (68 FR 70108), we published 

our proposed rule to defer until 

September 30, 2005, the effective date of 

designation for EAC areas that did not 

meet the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Fourteen of the 33 compact areas did 

not meet the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Our final designation rule published 

April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), as 

amended June 18, 2004 (69 FR 34080), 

included the following actions for 

compact areas: deferred the effective 

date of nonattainment designation for 14 

compact areas until September 30, 2005; 

detailed the progress compact areas had 

made toward completing their 

milestones; described the actions/ 

milestones required for compact areas in 

order to remain eligible for a deferred 

effective date for a nonattainment 

designation; detailed EPA’s schedule for 

taking further action to determine 

whether to further defer the effective 

date of nonattainment designations; and 

described the consequences for compact 

areas that do not meet a milestone. 

In the April 2004 action, we also 

discussed three compact areas which 

did not meet the March 31, 2004 

milestone; Knoxville, Memphis, and 

Chattanooga, Tennessee. Knoxville and 

Memphis were designated 

nonattainment effective June 15, 2004. 

Chattanooga was later determined to 

have met the March 31, 2004 milestone, 

and we deferred the designation date 

until September 30, 2005 (69 FR 34080). 

This brought the number of 

participating compact areas to 31. Since 

then, two additional areas, Haywood 

and Putnam Counties, Tennessee have 

withdrawn from the program leaving the 

participating number of compact areas 

at 29. 

On August 29, 2005, we published a 

final rule extending the deferred 

effective date of designation from 

September 30, 2005, to December 31, 

2006, for the same 14 compact areas. In 

order to receive this second deferral, 

EAC areas needed to submit a State 

Implementation Plan with locally 

adopted measures and a modeled 

attainment demonstration by December 

31, 2004. The EPA approved the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions as 

meeting the EAC Protocol and EPA’s 

EAC regulations at 40 CFR 81.300, and 

these approvals were the basis for 

extending the deferred effective date 

until December 31, 2006. Information on 

local measures, SIP submittals and 

background on the EAC program may be 

found on EPA’s Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/. 

On November 29, 2006, we published 

a final rule extending the deferred 

effective date of designation for 13 EAC 

areas from December 31, 2006 to April 

15, 2008, and for the Denver EAC area 

until July 1, 2007. All compact areas 

were required to submit two progress 

reports, one by December 30, 2005, and 

the other by June 30, 2006. In these 

progress reports, the States provided 

information on progress towards 

implementing local control measures 

that were incorporated in their SIPs. 

Each of the EAC areas submitted the 

required progress reports and these 

reports are available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/. 

Issues were noted by the State of 

Colorado with the Denver EAC area 

regarding emissions from oil and gas 

exploration and production condensate 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 40 / Thursday, March 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 9287 

tanks. In a report and action plan 

submitted by the State of Colorado to 

EPA, dated June 2, 2006, the State 

provided information that indicated 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions from oil and gas operations 

within the Denver EAC area were higher 

than had been estimated in the 

attainment demonstration modeling. In 

response to this issue, the State of 

Colorado initiated public rulemaking 

activities to amend Colorado’s 

Regulation No. 7 to require additional 

emissions reductions from oil and gas 

exploration and production condensate 

tanks to achieve the level of reductions 

relied on in the EPA-approved modeled 

attainment demonstration. However, an 

issue arose because the State’s 

rulemaking efforts before the Colorado 

Air Quality Commission (AQCC) in the 

latter part of 2006 would not be 

completed before EPA needed to 

publish a final rule for the last deferral 

of the effective date of the 

nonattainment designations for all of the 

EAC areas (see 71 FR 69022, November 

29, 2006). 

Based on the above information, EPA 

decided to defer the effective date of the 

nonattainment designation for the 

Denver EAC area only until July 1, 2007. 

This decision was designed to 

accommodate the necessary State 

rulemaking activities and to also ensure 

that continued progress was made on 

the Regulation No. 7 rulemaking actions 

as they proceeded before the AQCC and 

State Legislature. In our November 29, 

2006 final rulemaking, we detailed a 

timeline for subsequent rulemaking 

action for the Denver EAC area which is 

discussed below. 

IV. What Progress Has the Denver Early 

Action Compact Area Made? 

On December 31, 2006, the State of 

Colorado submitted their progress report 

for the Denver EAC area to EPA 

indicating that progress had been made 

in several areas. On September 21, 2006 

the Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment’s (CDPHE) Air 

Pollution Control Division (APCD) 

presented proposed revisions to 

Colorado’s Regulation No. 7, before the 

Colorado AQCC, for a more stringent 

regulatory scheme to control VOC’s 

from oil and gas exploration and 

production condensate tanks located in 

the Denver EAC area. These proposed 

revisions to Section XII of Regulation 

No. 7 were amended and adopted by the 

AQCC on December 17, 2006 along with 

associated revisions to the EPAapproved Denver EAC Ozone Action 

Plan. These AQCC rulemaking actions 

will achieve the required VOC 

emissions reductions from the oil and 

gas exploration and production 

condensate tanks that are located within 

the Denver EAC area boundary. In 

addition, the State continues working 

with all parties to reduce emissions of 

ozone and its precursors. 

The EPA’s proposed deferral of the 

effective date of the nonattainment 

designation of the Denver EAC area to 

April 15, 2008, is based upon the 

actions of the AQCC on December 17, 

2006 to approve revisions to Colorado’s 

Regulation No. 7 and also in 

consideration of the review of those 

AQCC-approved revisions, from January 

15, 2007 to February 15, 2007, by the 

Colorado State Legislature. In view of 

Colorado’s Legislative process for 

reviewing SIP revisions, we note that as 

of February 15, 2007 the State 

Legislature did not object or seek further 

review of the December 17, 2006 actions 

of the AQCC. Based on the above, we 

were advised by the State on February 

16, 2007, that the December 17, 2006 

actions of the AQCC to adopt changes to 

its Regulation No. 7 are, therefore, 

directed by State statute to be submitted 

to EPA for final approval and 

incorporation into the State 

Implementation Plan. We also note that 

before we take final action on the 

proposed deferral, we will consider any 

additional actions of the State, as well 

as comments received. 

V. What Is This Proposed Action for the 

Denver Early Action Compact Area? 

The EPA has determined that 

sufficient progress has been made by the 

Denver EAC area in order to propose 

extending the deferral of the 

nonattainment designation from July 1, 

2007, until April 15, 2008. Based on 

comments received on this proposal and 

the actions of the State Legislature, EPA 

will make a determination on finalizing 

this extension. 

VI. What Is EPA’s Schedule for Taking 

Further Action for Early Action 

Compact Areas and Specifically for the 

Denver Early Action Compact Area? 

All EAC areas have one remaining 

milestone which is to demonstrate 

attainment with the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by December 31, 2007. No later 

than April 15, 2008, we will determine 

whether the compact areas that received 

a deferred effective date of April 15, 

2008, attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

by December 31, 2007, and met all 

compact milestones. If the area did not 

attain the standard, the nonattainment 

designation will take effect. If the 

compact area attained the standard, EPA 

will designate the area as attainment. 

Any compact area that did not attain the 

NAAQS and thus has an effective 

nonattainment designation will be 

subject to the full planning 

requirements of title I, part D of the 

CAA, and the area will be required to 

submit a revised attainment 

demonstration SIP within 1 year of the 

effective date of designation. As 

described above, the Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission has 

undertaken rulemaking to address 

shortfalls in VOC emissions reductions 

for the Denver EAC. These rule 

revisions are designed to achieve greater 

VOC emission reductions from the oil 

and gas industry. We note the rule 

revisions contain a compliance date of 

May 1, 2007, which is just before the 

beginning of the Colorado high ozone 

season. 

As noted above, the Colorado 

Legislature considered these rule 

revisions from January 15, 2007 to 

February 15, 2007 and did not object or 

seek further review of the December 17, 

2006 actions of the AQCC to approve 

these revisions to Colorado’s Regulation 

No. 7. Therefore, pursuant to Colorado 

State statute and the State Legislative 

process for considering SIP revisions, as 

of February 16, 2007 these Regulation 

No. 7 revisions will be forwarded to the 

Governor for his submittal to EPA for 

our approval. 

A likely schedule for EPA’s 

subsequent rulemaking action for the 

deferral of the effective date of the 

designation of the Denver EAC area to 

April 15, 2008 is: 

—April, 2007; EPA evaluates all public 

comments. 

—May 1, 2007; EPA prepares a final rule 

and starts its internal concurrence 

process. 

—On or about May 25, 2007; Signature 

on the final rule by the Administrator. 

—June 1, 2007; Publication in the 

Federal Register of the final rule and 

that rule will have a 30-day effective 

date. 

The above schedule will allow EPA 

appropriate time to complete a final 

deferral of the Denver EAC area 

nonattainment effective date to April 15, 

2008, if EPA determines that is the 

appropriate action to take. As with the 

other EAC areas with a deferred 

nonattainment designation, if we extend 

the deferral of the Denver EAC area’s 

nonattainment designation until April 

15, 2008, the area will be designated 

nonattainment if it doesn’t show 

attainment by December 31, 2007. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
9288 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 40 / Thursday, March 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 

51735; October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the E.O. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This 

proposed rule does not require the 

collection of any information. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. The OMB 

control numbers for EPA’s regulations 

in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an Agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedures Act or any 

other statute unless the Agency certifies 

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 this proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business that is a small industrial entity 

as defined in the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (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-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. Rather, 

this rule would extend the deferred 

effective date of the nonattainment 

designation for the Denver area to 

implement control measures and 

achieve emissions reductions earlier 

than otherwise required by the CAA in 

order to attain the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

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 the 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 to State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any 1 year. 

Before promulgating an EPA rule for 

which a written statement is needed, 

section 205 of the 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 law. 

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 the 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. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and Tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any 1 year. In this proposed rule, EPA 

is deferring the effective date of 

nonattainment designations for certain 

areas that have entered into compacts 

with us. Thus, this proposed rulemaking 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

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’’ is defined in 

the E.O. 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.’’

This proposed rule 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. The CAA 

establishes the scheme whereby States 

take the lead in developing plans to 

meet the NAAQS. This proposed rule 

would not modify the relationship of 

the States and EPA for purposes of 

developing programs to implement the 

NAAQS. Thus, E.O. 13132 does 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 E.O. 13175. It does not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian Tribes, since no Tribe has 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 40 / Thursday, March 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 9289 

implemented a CAA program to attain 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS at this time or 

has participated in a compact. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 

23, 1997) applies to any rule that (1) is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under E.O. 

12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

The EPA interprets E.O. 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 

E.O. 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to E.O. 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 E.O. 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer Advancement Act 

of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104–

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA 

directs EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the 

Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable VCS. 

This proposed rule does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is 

not considering the use of any VCS. The 

EPA will encourage States that have 

compact areas to consider the use of 

such standards, where appropriate, in 

the development of their SIPs. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; 

Feb. 16, 1994 establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. 

The health and environmental risks 

associated with ozone were considered 

in the establishment of the 8-hour, 0.08 

ppm ozone NAAQS. The level is 

designed to be protective with an 

adequate margin of safety. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7408; 42 U.S.C. 7410; 

42 U.S.C. 7501–7511f; 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1). 

Dated: February 23, 2007. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–3584 Filed 2–28–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 76 

[MB Docket No. 07–29; FCC 07–7] 

Implementation of the Cable Television 

Consumer Protection and Competition 

Act of 1992 Development of 

Competition and Diversity in Video 

Programming Distribution: Section 

628(c)(5) of the Communications Act: 

Sunset of Exclusive Contract 

Prohibition 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission initiates a review to 

determine whether the prohibition on 

exclusive programming contracts 

continues to be necessary to preserve 

and protect competition and diversity in 

the distribution of video programming. 

Previously, the Commission retained for 

five years, until October 5, 2007, the 

prohibition on exclusive contracts. The 

Commission provided that, during the 

year before the expiration of the current 

5-year extension on October 5, 2007, a 

review would be undertaken to 

determine whether or not the 

exclusivity prohibition should sunset. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

whether and how our procedures for 

resolving program access disputes under 

Section 628 should be modified. 

DATES: Comments for this proceeding 

are due on or before April 2, 2007; reply 

comments are due on or before April 16, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 07–29, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People With Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Karen Kosar, 

Karen.Kosar@fcc.gov of the Media 

Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–

2120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s NPRM of 

Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07–7, 

adopted on February 7, 2007, and 

released on February 20, 2007. The full 

text of this document is available for 

public inspection and copying during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., CY–A257, Washington, DC 

20554. These documents will also be 

available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS