Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6863 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520. 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule would not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not effect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would 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. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD and Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is not likely to have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. A preliminary 

‘‘Environmental Analysis Check List’’

supporting this preliminary 

determination is available in the docket 

where indicated under ADDRESSES. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, and 

Waterways. 

Words of Issuance and Proposed 

Regulatory Text 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295; 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add new § 165.T11–002 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T11–002 Safety zone; Oceanside 

Harbor, California. 

(a) Location. The Coast Guard 

proposes establishing a temporary safety 

zone for the Bluewater Ford Ironman 

70.3 California Triathlon. The limits of 

this temporary safety zone are the 

waters of Oceanside Harbor, California, 

including the entrance channel. 

(b) Effective Period. This section is 

effective from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on 

March 29, 2008. 

(c) Regulations. Entry into, transit 

through or anchoring within this safety 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port of San Diego or 

his designated on-scene representative. 

Mariners requesting permission to 

transit through the safety zone may 

request authorization to do so from the 

Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The 

PATCOM may be contacted on VHF–FM 

Channel 16. 

Dated: January 25, 2008. 

C.V. Strangfeld, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, San Diego. 

[FR Doc. E8–2167 Filed 2–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0006; FRL–8525–9] 

Final 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards Designations for 

the Early Action Compact Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
6864 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

designate 13 Early Action Compact 

(EAC) Areas as attainment for the 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). The EAC areas 

agreed to reduce ground-level ozone 

pollution earlier than the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) required and to demonstrate 

attainment with the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by December 31, 2007. The 

States in which these 13 areas are 

located have submitted quality-assured 

data indicating that the areas are in 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on ambient air monitoring data 

from 2005, 2006 and 2007. In addition, 

the EPA plans to revoke the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS for each of these areas 

one year after the effective date of the 

designations for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, and we would modify the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS tables in the 

regulations to reflect the application of 

the revocation. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 21, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2008–0006, by one of the 

following methods: 

• 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–2008–

0006, 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–2008–

0006. 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–2008–

0006. 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 

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 www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The 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 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 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 

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 

e-mail at: cole.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

This proposed action applies only to 

the 13 EAC areas identified in section 

IV, Table 1, below that have deferred 

designations for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS until April 15, 2008. 

Additionally, this action notes that in 

the final rule, EPA plans to take the 

ministerial action of revising the CFR to 

reflect the effective date of the 

nonattainment designation for the 

Denver EAC area, which was designated 

nonattainment on November 20, 2007. 

B. How Is This Document Organized? 

The information presented in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

Outline 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

B. How is This Document Organized? 

II. What Is the Purpose of This Document? 

III. What Action Has EPA Taken to Date for 

Early Action Compact Areas? 

IV. What Is the Proposed Action for the 13 

Early Action Compact Areas? 

V. 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 designating 13 EAC areas as 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, as they have met all the 

milestones of the EAC program and 

demonstrated that they were in 

attainment with the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by December 31, 2007. At the 

time we take final action on this 

proposal we also plan to take the 

ministerial action of revising Section 

81.306 to reflect the nonattainment 

designation for the Denver EAC area. On 

September 21, 2007, EPA extended the 

deferred effective date for the Denver 

EAC area from September 14, 2007 to 

November 20, 2007, while settlement 

negotiations were taking place, and to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6865 

1As noted previously, we also initially deferred 

the nonattainment designation for the Denver EAC 

area, but the nonattainment designation for the Denver EAC area became effective November 20, 

2007. 

allow time for an evaluation of the 

Denver EAC’s 8-hour ozone air quality 

for 2005, 2006 and the first three 

quarters of 2007. Evaluation of the data 

indicated a violation of the 8-hour 

ozone standard, therefore, EPA took no 

action to further defer the effective date 

of designation and Denver’s 

nonattainment designation became 

effective on November 20, 2007. 

In addition, the EPA plans to revoke 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for each of 

these EAC areas one year after the 

effective date of the designations for the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, and we would 

modify the 1-hour ozone NAAQS tables 

in 40 CFR part 81 to reflect the 

application of the revocation. This 

action was taken for all other areas of 

the country except the EACs on August 

3, 2005 (70 FR 44470). 

III. What Action Has EPA Taken to 

Date for Early Action Compact Areas? 

Currently, there are 28 areas 

remaining in the EAC program. Of those 

28 areas, 13 had their designations 

deferred for the ozone 8-hour NAAQ 

until April 15, 2008 (71 FR 69022).1 The 

other 15 areas were designated 

attainment in April 2004, with an 

effective date of June 15, 2004. These 

areas have remained in the program in 

order to continue improving their local 

air quality. For discussions on 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 and Denver specifically 

please refer to the Federal Register 

dated June 28, 2007 (72 FR 35356) and 

September 21, 2007 (72 FR 53952). In 

addition, EPA’s April 30, 2004, air 

quality designation rule (69 FR 23858) 

provides a description of the compact 

area approach, the requirements for 

areas participating in the compact and 

the impacts of the compact on those 

areas. 

You may find copies of all State 

reports at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

naaqs/ozone/eac/. 

IV. What Is the Proposed Action for the 

13 Early Action Compact Areas? 

The 13 EAC areas with deferred 

designations for the 8-hour NAAQS, had 

to meet one final milestone which was 

to demonstrate attainment with the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 31, 

2007. Each of these EAC areas met all 

of the earlier milestones of the EAC 

program and the States in which the 

areas are located have now submitted 

quality-assured data demonstrating that 

the areas attained the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS based on air quality data from 

2005, 2006 and 2007. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to designate these 13 areas as 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. Table 1 provides the 8-hour 

ozone design values for each of the 13 

EAC areas based on the 2005–2007 air 

quality data. 

TABLE 1.—8-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES FOR COMPACT AREAS PROPOSED TO BE DESIGNATED ATTAINMENT FOR 8- 

HOUR OZONE NAAQS EFFECTIVE APRIL 15, 2008 

ote: Name of designated 8-hour ozone deferred nonattainment areas is in parentheses. 

State Compact area (designated area) Counties proposed to be designated attainment 

effective April 15, 2008 

8-hour ozone 

design value 

(parts per 

million) 

EPA Region 3 

VA ................ Northern Shenandoah Valley Region (Frederick County, VA), adjacent to Washington, DC-MD-VA.Winchester City, Frederick County ............................... 0.073 

VA ................ Roanoke area (Roanoke, VA) ....................................... Roanoke County, Botetourt County, Roanoke City, 

Salem City.

0.076 

MD ............... Washington County (Washington County, Hagerstown, 

MD), adjacent to Washington, DC-MD-VA.

Washington County ....................................................... 0.079 

WV ............... The Eastern Pan Handle Region (Berkeley & Jefferson Counties, WV), Martinsburg area.Berkeley County, Jefferson County .............................. 0.075 

EPA Region 4 

NC ................ Unifour (Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC) ...................... Catawba County, Alexander County, Burke County 

(part), Caldwell County (part).

0.078 

NC ................ Triad (Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC) ..... Randolph County, Forsyth County, Davie County, 

Alamance County, Caswell County, Davidson County, Guilford County, Rockingham County.

0.083 

NC ................ Cumberland County (Fayetteville, NC) ......................... Cumberland County ...................................................... 0.082 

SC ................ Appalachian—A (Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, 

SC).

Spartanburg County, Greenville County, Anderson 

County.

0.083 

SC ................ Central Midlands—I Columbia area .............................. Richland County (part), Lexington County (part) .......... 0.082 

TN/GA .......... Chattanooga (Chattanooga, TN-GA) ............................ Hamilton County, TN, Meigs County, TN, Catoosa 

County, GA.

0.084 

TN ................ Nashville (Nashville, TN) ............................................... Davidson County, Rutherford County, Williamson 

County, Wilson County, Sumner County.

0.084 

TN ................ Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol area (TN portion only) Sullivan County, TN, Hawkins County, TN ................... 0.083 

EPA Region 6 

TX ................ San Antonio ................................................................... Bexar County, Comal County, Guadalupe County ....... 0.082 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
6866 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

V. 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. 

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. 

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 one year. Thus, this proposed 

rulemaking is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

EPA has determined that this rule 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because this rule 

does not contain Federal mandates. 

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. In the spirit 

of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and confined governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6867 

implemented a CAA program to attain 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS at this time or 

has participated in a compact. Thus 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. EPA specifically solicits 

additional comments on this proposed 

rule from tribal officials. 

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. 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

the Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

EAC program has provided cleaner air 

sooner than required under the CAA to 

these communities. The public is 

invited to submit or identify peerreviewed studies and data, of which the 

agency may not be aware, that assessed 

results of early life exposure to ozone. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed 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. EPA 

welcomes comments on this aspect of 

the proposed rulemaking and 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

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: January 31, 2008. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–2187 Filed 2–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0674; FRL–8345–2] 

2,4-D, Bensulide, DCPA, 

Desmedipham, Dimethoate, 

Fenamiphos, Phorate, Sethoxydim, 

Terbufos, and Tetrachlorvinphos; 

Proposed Tolerance Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke 

certain tolerances for the herbicide 

sethoxydim and the insecticides 

dimethoate, fenamiphos, terbufos, and 

tetrachlorvinphos. Also, EPA is 

proposing to modify certain tolerances 

for the herbicides 2,4-D, DCPA, 

desmedipham, and sethoxydim and the 

insecticides dimethoate, fenamiphos, 

phorate, and tetrachlorvinphos. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to establish 

new tolerances for the herbicides 

bensulide and sethoxydim. The 

regulatory actions proposed in this 

document are in follow-up to the 

Agency’s reregistration program under 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and tolerance 

reassessment program under the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 

section 408(q). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 7, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0674 by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays). Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–

0674. EPA’s policy is that all comments 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS