WPCU -Dϝ>`TcŎ>E3/oU叞{9B>hs=e7aȤ;d]U/NK,[2I ._òvS,`U,:Ul G莌quZs0zz[fPf,Sd1)^Ng`lpf J Hzd?mjjet\oNZl7K) Mĉ`¼xޘjp;XW7waeBi(j 7rиM]UrXJYQtb}!yh%s43t[S;;OUYy`:,}t*z;K  OSViY8,r(BF5M΋9=nU"%ś;o'p>b*|s(Z"[KDJo/|Qi(FWJ*EREgK8-#!v UN! %! 06!H!" 0Ri""UF"^ #w@#4U#i#x# mz# 1# 1u$ 0 c$UF$UF6% 0 |% 0 c&UFz&M&`&$'U F( C(.) CA-M[-N_- 0wa- 0-Nb. 0d. 0/ 0/x0 00 01 12NH3 0DJ3 13 14 14 1#5~5a(89:f: 1:';\<? 1DNpEUFrEE(E(GJ 0R!PMsP 1wPRPPNPRPRPRMRR BVR D3sRsRMRRRRRRRRR 0NRRR BRRRRRRMSSSMSSS 1SSS 0^SSMTMTM T 0RTTTT D3`T`T`T`T`TMTMTTMTNTTTTMTTT ATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT B$U BAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAU:^UHP LaserJet 4MV,,,,,,0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX(d $ C:\APPS\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT(*3$ d ! X  <4 9Z .Courier New Regular() DDUEσ')%3|xU(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  <4 9Z .Courier New Regular.Courier New Regular(Z2$ d ! X  XoXXX  0  ("$XDXXX  0  <4 9Z .Courier New Regular V '  _  [ XX  $XoXXX  1    _ ` FindingofSignificantContributionand_Rulemaking_Ԁfor  CertainStatesintheOzoneTransportAssessmentGroupRegionforPurposesofReducingRegionalTransportofOzone,63FR57354,October27,1998.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular d $ $XoXXX  7    _XXo ` #XoXt#TheEPAsapproachhereisconsistentwithits  administrativestayofarulerelatedtothe_NOx_ԀSIPcall,commonlyreferredtoasthe Section126Rule(64FR28249,May25,1999).OnJune24,1999,EPAissueda5monthinterimfinalstayofthatruleinpartduetotheuncertaintyaboutthe8hourozonestandardsengenderedbytheATAdecision(64FR33956,June24,1999).TheEPA   simultaneouslypublishedaproposaltostaythe8hourdeterminationsindefinitely(64FR33962,June24,1999).TheEPAissuedafinalrulestayingthe8hourdeterminationsindefinitelyonJanuary18,_2000,____(__65_ԀFR_2674)._Ԁ dd(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#  XXXXJoAnnAllmanAssnsXXXXX vvvvNAAQS($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(# !#$%'(hAG_cgkosw{Bullet ListBullet List6b$Triangle0 (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(CEKQW]cioAutoList4A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. ڽCEKQW]cioAutoList6A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.8hrstay6_21  / ' jking0jking .    W $XoXXX  3    _ ` TheEPApromulgatedrevisedparticulatematterNAAQSin  July1997,andthechallengestotheparticulatematterNAAQSwereheardanddecidedatthesametimeasthechallengestotheozoneNAAQS. $XoXXX  4    _ ` TheEPAsoughtrehearingononeotherissue,not  relevanthere. 0       (hCEKQW]cioAutoList71.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.  $XoXXX  5    _ ` Tograntrehearing,amajorityofthejudgessittingon  thecourtneedtovoteinfavorofrehearing.Oftheelevensittingjudges,fivevotedinfavorofrehearing,fourvotedagainstrehearingandtwodidnotparticipateinthedecision. R $XoXXX  6    _XoXXXo ` TheStateandindustrypartiesthathadchallengedthe  NAAQSseparatelyrequestedtheSupremeCourttoreviewtheissueofwhetherEPAisprecludedfromconsideringcostswhenpromulgatingNAAQS.TheSupremeCourtgrantedtheir ,|  requestonMay30,2000,andprovidedthatitwouldconsiderthisissueatthesametimeitconsiderstheissuesraisedbyEPA.#XoXXXot#  $:XXXX  10    _ ` TheEPAnotesthatinreviewingtheSIPcall,asbased  onthe1hourstandard,thecourtremandedtwoissuestoEPAthatmayaffecttheultimatebudgetnumbersforeachState:(1)thedefinitionofelectricgeneratingunitsasitrelatesto_cogeneration_Ԁunits;and(2)thecontrollevelforstationaryinternalcombustionengines.Althoughthecourtonlyremanded,anddidnotvacate,theportionsofthebudgetsbasedonEPAsanalysisofthesetwoissues,EPAhasinformedthe20StatesthatremainsubjecttotheSIPcall,asbasedonthe1hourstandard,thattheirinitial_SIPs_ԀinresponsetotheSIPcallneednotaccountfortheportionofthebudgetrepresentedbyemissionsfromthesetwosourcecategories.TheEPAiscurrentlydevelopingaproposedruletoaddresstheremandedissuesforpurposesofthe1hourstandard.Althoughthecourtsdecisiononthesetwoissues,aswellasthecourts_vacatur_ԀoftheruleasitappliestoWisconsin,Georgia,andMissouri,wasonlyforpurposesofthe1hourstandard,EPAplanstoconsidertheeffectofthecourtsreasoningonthe8hourbasisfortheSIPcallatthesametimethatEPAundertakesanyrulemakingtoliftthestayofthe8hourbasisoftheSIPcall.(CEKQW]cioAutoList8A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular    $XoXXX  2    _ ` OnMarch22,2000_(XoXXXo65FR11222)#XoXXXo#,_ԀEPAissuedtechnical  correctionsoftheportionoftherulespecifyingthe_NOx_emissionslevelsthateachStatemustprojectitwillnotexceedin2007(_NOx_Ԁbudget).__Ԁ  $XoXXX  9    _ ` Becausethestayofthefindingsforthe8hour  standardstaysanypresentobligationofthesethreeStatestosubmitaSIPin_reponse_ԀtotheSIP_call,_ԀitalsoeffectivelystayswithrespecttothesethreeStatestheapplicabilityoftherevised_NOx_ԀbudgetsestablishedintheMarch2,2000rule.  $XoXXX  10    _ ` TheEPAnotesthatinreviewingtheSIPcall,asbased  onthe1hourstandard,thecourtremandedtwoissuestoEPAthatmayaffecttheultimatebudgetnumbersforeachState:(1)thedefinitionofelectricgeneratingunitsasitrelatesto_cogeneration_Ԁunits;and(2)thecontrolleveltheAgencyassumedforstationaryinternalcombustionengines.Althoughthecourtonlyremanded,anddidnotvacate,theportionsofthebudgetsbasedonEPAsanalysisofthesetwoissues,EPAhasinformedthe20StatesthatremainsubjecttotheSIPcall,asbasedonthe1hourstandard,thattheirinitial_SIPs_ԀinresponsetotheSIPcallneednotaccountfortheportionofthebudgetrepresentedbyemissionsfromthesetwosourcecategories.TheEPAiscurrentlydevelopingaproposedruletoaddresstheremandedissuesforpurposesofthe1hourstandard.Althoughthecourtsdecisiononthesetwoissues,aswellasthecourts_vacatur_ l   oftheruleasitappliestoWisconsin,Georgia,andMissouri,wasonlyforpurposesofthe1hourstandard,EPAplanstoconsidertheeffectofthecourtsreasoningonthe8hourbasisfortheSIPcallatthesametimethatEPAundertakesanyrulemakingtoliftthestayofthe8hourbasisoftheSIPcall.(*3$ d ! X  ( CEKQW]cioAutoList9A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. H $XoXXX  8    _ ` AlthoughtheStatePetitionersrequestedthecourtto  staythesubmissionobligationuntilApril27,2000,thecourtstayedthesubmissionrequirement untilfurtherorder. dHHHH'dxd(O$ d(ʽCEKQW]cioAutoList5A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(63$ d ! X   d (*3$ d ! X  WWWW'dxdky  <<= 8C d  d 0_  d ! X  _XoXXX8oXXdd8р_0 __0 (# (#__0h(#(#__0h(#h(#__0(#(#__0p(#(#__0p(#p(#__0 (#(#__656050P_Ԁ  Ѐπ X (# (#    ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY P 40_CFR_ԀPart51[FRLXXXXX]StayoftheEightHourPortionoftheFindingsofSignificantContributionand_Rulemaking_ԀforPurposesofReducingInterstateOzoneTransport_ @ __ @ _  AGENCY : EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).    ACTION:0 Finalrule.t  (# (#  SUMMARY : Intodaysaction,EPAisamendingafinalruleit (x issuedundersection110oftheCleanAirAct(CAA)relatedtointerstatetransportofpollutants.TheEPAisstayingitsfindingsinthenitrogenoxidesStateImplementationPlancall(_NOx_ԀSIPcall)_ XoXXXo  1      _Ԁcontainedin40_CFR_Ԁ 0 51.121(a)(2),relatedtothe8hourozonenationalambientairqualitystandards(NAAQS). ` Inthefinal_NOx_ԀSIPcall,EPAfoundthatemissionsof_NOx_Ԁfrom22StatesandtheDistrictofColumbia(23States)significantlycontributetodownwindareas_nonattainment_Ԁofthe1hourozoneNAAQS.TheEPAalsoseparatelyfoundthat_NOx_Ԁemissionsfromthesame23Statessignificantly x&!( Їcontributetodownwind_nonattainment_Ԁofthe8hourozoneNAAQS.̀ ` Subsequently,theU.S.CourtofAppealsforthe P DistrictofColumbiaCircuit(D.C.Circuit)#XYXXXo9#XoXXXYremandedthe8   hourozoneNAAQS._American_ԀTruckingAssociations,Inc.v. P  EPA,175F.3d1027onrehearing195F.3d4_(D.C._ԀCir.1999).  H  #XYXXXo] #XoXXXYTheEPAproposedtostaythe8hourbasisoftheNoxSIP   callrulebasedontheuncertaintycreatedbytheD.C.Circuitsdecision.FourpartiescommentedontheproposedrulewhichwaspublishedonMarch1,2000(65FR11024).Norequestsweremadetoholdapublichearing.Afterconsideringthesecomments,EPAhasdeterminedtofinalizeitsproposedstayofthe8hourbasisofthe_NOx_ԀSIPcallrule.#XYXXXo #XoXXXY DATES :Thefinalruleiseffective_ [insertdate30days 0 from_Ԁpublication].    ADDRESSES : `   ` DocumentsrelevanttothisactionareavailableforinspectionattheAirandRadiationDocketandInformationCenter(6102),Attention:DocketNo.A9656,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,401MStreet,SW,Room_M_1500,Washington,DC20460,telephone(202)2607548between8:00a.m.and5:30p.m.,MondaythoughFriday,excluding  h)$, legalholidays.Areasonablefeemaybechargedforcopying. FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT :Questionsconcerning P today'sactionshouldbeaddressedtoJanKing,OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards,AirQualityStrategiesandStandardsDivision,MD15,ResearchTrianglePark,NC,27711,telephone(919)5415665,emailatking.jan@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION : `   AvailabilityofRelatedInformation   p   ` Theofficialrecordforthe_NOx_ԀSIPcall_rulemaking_,aswellasthepublicversionoftherecord,hasbeenestablishedunderdocketnumberA9656(includingcommentsanddatasubmittedelectronicallyasdescribedbelow).TheEPAhasaddednewsectionstothatdocketforpurposesoftodays_rulemaking_.Thepublicversionofthisrecord,includingprinted,paperversionsofelectroniccomments,whichdoesnotincludeanyinformationclaimedasconfidentialbusinessinformation,isavailableforinspectionfrom8:00a.m.to5:30p.m.,MondaythroughFriday,excludinglegalholidays.The_rulemaking_ԀrecordislocatedattheaddressinADDRESSESatthebeginningofthisdocument.Inaddition,theFederalRegister_rulemakings_Ԁand '#* associateddocumentsarelocatedathttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/rto/.#XYXXXo #XoXXXY +`&.  Outline   I.0 ` Backgroundp` (#` (#  ` A.0 FindingsunderSection110toReduceInterstate D OzoneTransport  (# (#  ` B.0 CourtDecisions< (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.0 (# (#8HourNAAQS (#(# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.0 (# (#Challengestothe_NOx_ԀSIPCall (#(# II.0 ` _Final_ԀRuleh ` (#` (# III.ResponsetoComments#XYXXXo:#XoXXXYIV.0 ` AdministrativeRequirements ` ` (#` (# 0 ` #XYXXXo.#XoXXXYA.0 ` (#` (#ExecutiveOrder12866:RegulatoryImpactAnalysis 4  (# (# 0 ` B.0 ` (#` (#UnfundedMandatesReformAct  (# (# L /ڽ(3L 3   0 ` 32ڽ  C  .3  0 ` (#` (#  ExecutiveOrder13132:_Federalism_3J݌  (# (# Ќ   3   0 ` 3:2ڽ  D  .3  0 ` (#` (#  ExecutiveOrder13084:Consultationand `  CoordinationwithIndianTribalGovernments#XYXXXo#XoXXXY3:q݌4  (# (# Ќ   3   0 ` 32ڽ  E  .3  0 ` (#` (#  ExecutiveOrder12898:EnvironmentalJustice#XYXXXo]#XoXXXYԀ3݌X  (# (# Ќ   3   0 ` 3 2ڽ  F  .3  0 ` (#` (#  RegulatoryFlexibilityAct(_RFA_),asamendedby , theSmallBusinessRegulatoryEnforcementFairnessActof1996(_SBREFA_),5_USC_Ԁ601et.seq.3 A݌  (# (# Ќ   3   0 ` 3 2ڽ  G  .3  0 ` (#` (#  ExecutiveOrder13045:ProtectionofChildren X fromEnvironmentalHealthRisksandSafetyRisks3 !݌  (# (# Ќ   3   0 ` 3""2ڽ  H  .3  0 ` (#` (#  NationalTechnologyTransferandAdvancementAct#XYXXXo#XoXXXY3""Y"݌P (# (# Ќ   3   0 ` 3o#2ڽ  I  .3  0 ` (#` (#  PaperworkReductionAct#XYXXXo ##XoXXXY3o##݌$ (# (# Ќ   3   0 ` 3$2ڽ  J  .3  0 ` (#` (#  JudicialReview#XYXXXoA$#XoXXXY3$$݌ (# (# Ќ  _____L A ((/L__ 3    ` 3&2   K  .3  0   CongressionalReviewAct3&&݌| (# (# Ќ   ` _ I.Background  $t  A.FindingsunderSection110toReduceInterstateOzone 4 Transport    ` OnSeptember24,1998(63FR57356,October27,1998),EPAtookfinalactionrequiring22StatesandtheDistrictofColumbia(23States)toregulateemissionsofnitrogenoxides(_NOx_),oneofthemainprecursorsofgroundlevelozone,onthebasisthattheseemissionscontributetothetransportofozoneacrossStateboundariesintheeasternhalfoftheUnitedStates.TheEPAfoundthatsourcesandemittingactivitiesinthe23Statesemit_NOx_Ԁinamounts +L'/ thatsignificantlycontributeto_nonattainment_Ԁofthe1hourozoneNAAQS.Separately,EPAalsodeterminedthat#XYXXXom%#XoXXXYsources X andemittingactivitiesinthe23Statesemit_NOx_Ԁinamountsthatsignificantlycontributeto_nonattainment_Ԁofthe8hourozoneNAAQS.#XYXXXo!+#XoXXXYTheEPAalsoconcludedthatthelevelof_NOx_ P  reductionsnecessarytoaddressthesignificantcontributionforthe8hourNAAQSwasthesameasforthe1hourNAAQS.TheEPAsetforthrequirementsforeachoftheaffectedupwindStatestosubmitSIPrevisionsprohibitingthoseamountsof_NOx_Ԁemissionswhichsignificantlycontributetodownwind_nonattainment_.Toaccomplishthisgoal,eachStateisrequiredtosubmitaSIP,providingfor_NOx_ԀreductionsinamountssuchthatanyremainingemissionswouldnotexceedthelevelspecifiedinEPAsSIPcallregulationsforthatStatein2007.#XYXXXoG,#XoXXXY_< XoXXXo  2      _ 0  B.CourtDecisions    1.8HourNAAQS  H   ` TheEPApromulgatedtherevised8hourozoneNAAQSinJuly1997,andtheNAAQSwerechallengedbyanumberofparties.OnMay14,1999,theD.C.CircuitissuedanopinionquestioningtheconstitutionalityoftheCAA &P!( authoritytoreviewandrevisetheNAAQS,asappliedinEPAsrevisiontotheozoneandparticulatematterNAAQS.SeeAmericanTrucking_Assns_Ԁv.EPA,175F.3d1027#XYXXXon/#XoXXXYԀ(D.C. P Cir.1999).1 XoXXXo  3      _ԀThe_Ԁcourtalsoaddressedotherissues,   includingEPAsauthoritytoimplementarevisedozonestandard.Basedonthestatutoryprovisionsregardingclassificationsandattainmentdatesundersections172(a)and181(a),thecourtdeterminedthat,althoughthestatuteallowedEPAtopromulgateamorestringentozoneNAAQS,thestatuteprovidednoauthorityforEPAtorequireStatestocomplywithamorestringentozoneNAAQS. ` TheEPAandtheDepartmentofJusticesoughtrehearingonwhethertheCAA,asappliedbyEPA,violatedtheconstitutionandonwhethertheissueofEPAsimplementationauthoritywasappropriatelybeforethecourtand,ifso,whethertheCAAprohibitedEPAfromimplementingamorestringentozoneNAAQS.2 XoXXXo  4      ׀#XYXXXox2#XoXXXYOnOctober29,1999,the 0  threejudgepanelthatissuedtheinitialdecisiongrantedinpartanddeniedinpartEPAsrehearingrequestwithrespecttowhetherEPAhadauthoritytoimplementamore ($x& stringentozoneNAAQS.AmericanTruckingAssociationv.  EPA,195F.3d4(D.C.Cir.1999).Thethreejudgepanel,in X atwotoone_decision,_ԀdeniedEPAsrehearingrequestontheconstitutionalissue;andthefullcourtalsodeniedEPAsrequestforrehearingonthatissue.5 XoXXXo  5      #XYXXXo6#XoXXXYԀ   P   ` WithrespecttoEPAsimplementationauthority,thepanelmodifieditsdecisiontofindthatEPAmayimplementamorestringentozoneNAAQSonlyinconformitywiththeplanningprovisionsspecifictoozone,locatedinsubpart2ofpartDoftitleIoftheCAA.Judge_Tatel_Ԁdidnotjoininthemajority_opinion,_ԀbutfiledaseparateconcurringdecisiononthebasisthathereadthemajoritydecisiontoallowEPAtoimplementthemorestringent8hourNAAQSonceanareahadattainedthe1hourozoneNAAQS.195F.3dat11. ` TheEPAfiledapetitionrequestingtheSupremeCourttoreviewtheD.C.Circuitsdecisionregardingtheconstitutionalandimplementationissues.TheSupremeCourtgrantedEPAsrequestonMay22,2000.6 XoXXXo  6       "$  ` ThelitigationcontinuestocreateuncertaintywithrespecttowhenEPAmaybeabletomoveforwardtofullyimplementtherevised8hourNAAQS;thus,EPAcontinuestobelievethatitisimprudenttorelyonthe8hourNAAQSasanindependent,alternativebasisforthe_NOx_ԀSIPcallatthistime.#XYXXXo9#XoXXXYԀInstead,EPAbelievesthemostprudentcourse  H  andonerespectfuloftheCourtsconclusionsinAmerican   Trucking!istostaythefindingsintheSIPcallthat H  emissionsincertainStatescontributesignificantlyto_nonattainment_Ԁofthe8hourozoneNAAQSincertaindownwindStates._  XoXXXo  7      _ԀTheeffectofsuchastayisdescribedinsection @ II,below. 2.Challengestothe_NOx_ԀSIPCall    ` NineStatesandavarietyofindustryandindustryandlabororganizationschallengedthe_NOx_ԀSIPcallrule.TheStatepetitionersrequestedthecourttostaytheobligation  undertheSIPcallthatStatessubmit_SIPs_Ԁthatregulatedthenecessarylevelof_NOx_ԀemissionsbySeptember30,1999.OnMay25,1999,thecourtgrantedtheStatesrequest,stayingtheSIPsubmissiondeadlinependingfurtherorderofthecourt.B XgYXXXoXoXXXgY  8      ׀Michiganv.EPA,No.981497(D.C.Cir.,May P  25,1999)(ordergrantingstayinpart). ` InNovember1999,EPArequestedthecourttostayitsconsiderationofthepetitionersissuesregardingthe8hourbasisforthe_NOx_ԀSIPcallbasedontheD.C.Circuitsdecisionregardingthe8hourNAAQS,includingthedecisiononrehearing,andtheprospectofcontinuedlitigationregardingthatNAAQS.TheEPAprovidedthatitplannedtostayitsfindinginthe_NOx_ԀSIPcallrelatedtothe8hourozoneNAAQS.ThecourtgrantedEPAsmotion.Stateof 8 Michiganv.EPA,213F.3d663,670671(D.C.Cir.2000). 0  ` OnMarch3,2000,thecourtissuedadecision,largelyupholdingthe_NOx_ԀSIPcallrulewithrespecttothe1hourozoneNAAQS.However,thecourtremandedafewissuestotheAgencyandvacatedtheruleasitappliedtothreeStates.ThecourtdidnotaddressitspendingstayoftheSIPsubmissionrequirement. `     h      p      ` Morespecifically,thecourtdeterminedthatEPAhad x'"* notprovidedasufficientopportunityforcommentontwoissues:(1)thelevelofreductionstheAgencyhadassumedforinternalcombustionengines;and(2)theinclusionofasubsetofsourcesaselectricgeneratingunits(_EGUs_).(1)thedefinitionofelectricgeneratingunitsasitrelatesto_cogeneration_Ԁunits;and(2)thecontrolleveltheAgencyassumedforstationaryinternalcombustionengines.#XYXXXo{?#XoXXXYStateofMichiganv.EPA213F.3dat69193.On P  April11and13,2000,EPAinformedthe19StatesandtheDistrictofColumbiabyletteroftheAgencyscalculationoftheeffectofthisaspectofthedecisionontheemissions budgetforeachState. ` WithrespecttoWisconsin,thecourtdeterminedthatEPAinappropriatelyincludedWisconsinbasedonitscontributionto1hourozonenonattainmentlevelsthatwereoccurringoverLakeMichigan.TheCourtheldthatthereadingsovertheLakecouldnotbeconsideredto contributesignificantlytononattainmentin...anyotherState.StateofMichiganv.EPA,213F.3dat681.The  courtalsovacatedtheruleasitappliestoGeorgiaandMissouriunderthe1hourstandardonthebasisthatEPAhadnotexplainedwhyitwasappropriatetobasetheSIPcallonemissionsthroughouteachentireStatewhentherewasevidenceindicatingthatemissionsincertainpartsofthoseStatesdidnotcontributesignificantlytodownwind_nonattainment_Ԁforthe1hourNAAQS.__Ԁ___State_ԀofMichiganv.  )p$, EPA,213F.3d68185. *&.  ` TheEPAiscurrentlytakingstepstoissueproposed p,'0 rulesaddressingtheissuesremandedorremandedandvacatedbythecourt. ` Subsequently,EPArequestedthecourttoliftitsstayoftherequirementforStatestosubmit_SIPs_.Manyofthepetitionersinthecasefiledmotionsforrehearingbythethreejudgepanelthatissuedthedecision,aswellasthefullcourt.OnJune22,2000,thecourtgranted,inpart,EPAsmotiontoliftthestayoftheSIPsubmissionobligation.Initsorder,thecourtnotedthatatthetimethestaywasissued,Stateshad128daysremainingtosubmittheirplans(thetimebetweenMay25,1999andSeptember30,1999).ThecourtprovidedthatEPAshouldallow128daysfromthedateofthecourtsorderforStatestosubmittheirplans.Thus,underthecourtsorder,_SIPs_ԀaredueOctober30,2000.Inaddition,boththepanelandthefullcourtdeniedtherequestsforrehearing. II.FinalRule  0   ` TheEPAisamendingthefinal_NOx_ԀSIPcallruletostayitsfindingsrelatedtothe8hourNAAQS.TheEPAbelievesitshouldnotcontinueimplementationeffortsundersection110withrespecttothe8hourstandardthatcouldbeconstruedasinconsistentwiththe courtsrulingwhile '"* theseissuesarebeingconsideredbytheSupremeCourt.Giventhisposition,EPAbelievesthattheAgencyshouldnot *0&. continuetomoveforwardwithfindingsundersection110basedonthe8hourstandard.Thus,EPAisstayingindefinitelythefindingsofsignificantcontributionbasedonthe8hourstandard,pendingfurtherdevelopmentsintheNAAQSlitigation.TherequirementsoftheSIPcall,includingthefindingsofsignificantcontributionby19StatesandtheDistrictofColumbia,andthenecessary_emissions_Ԁreductionsandrelatedstatewidebudgets,astemperedbythecourtsremandoftheinternalcombustionengineand_EGU_Ԁissues,arefullyandindependentlysupportedbyEPAsfindingsunderthe1hourNAAQS.Sincetherulewasbasedindependentlyonthe1hourNAAQS,astayofthefindingsbasedonthe8hourstandardswouldhavenoeffectontherequiredremedyforthe19StatesandtheDistrictofColumbia.FortheseStates,theeffectofthestaywouldbethatStateswouldhavenoobligationduringthependencyofthestaytoregulateNOxemissionsundertheSIP_call_Ԁruleforpurposesofaddressingdownwindnonattainmentofthe8hourNAAQS.__ԀThese20StateswouldremainobligatedtomoveforwardtoregulateemissionsofNOxforthepurposeof_addressing_Ԁtheircontributiontodownwindnonattainmentofthe1hourstandard. ` However,thecourtvacatedtheSIPcallrule,basedonEPAsfindingsforthe1hourstandard,forthreeStates_!Wisconsin,_ԀGeorgia,andMissouri.TheeffectofEPAsstay p,'0 ofthefindingsunder_section_Ԁ110basedonthe8hourstandardistostaytherequirementforthesethreeStatestosubmitanySIPinresponseto_the_ԀSIPcall._= XoXXXo  9      _ԀThus,these P threeStateswouldhavenoobligationundertheSIPcalluntilsuchtimeasEPAeitherliftsthestayofthefindingsundersection110basedonthe8hourstandardorcompletes_rulemaking_Ԁinresponsetothecourts_vacatur_Ԁandremandofthe1hourbasisoftheSIPcallruleandmakesnewfindingsundersection110basedonthe1hourstandard. III.Responseto_Comments_    ` Four_commenters_ԀsubmittedcommentsontheMarch2,2000proposal.ThecommentsaresummarizedbelowalongwithEPAsresponses. h    L 4h((AL Comment :Three_commenters_ԀsuggestthatEPAdenyand P eliminateallfindingsandprovisionsbasedonthe8hourstandardinlightofthecourtsdecisioninATA,remanding  thatstandardtoEPA.One_commenter_ԀalsoclaimsthatEPAmustadjustanyemissionreductionrequirementstoreflectonlythoseneededtoachievethe1hourstandard.Oneofthese_commenters_ԀbelievesthatEPAsproposaltostaythe8 `$& hourbasisoftheSIP_call_Ԁ_rule_Ԁisa secondbestapproach. Response :Thecourtin_ATA_Ԁremanded,butdidnot_vacate,_Ԁthe X 8hourstandard.Becausethe8hourstandardremainsineffect,EPAdoesnotbelievethatitisnecessaryfortheAgencytovacatethe8hourbasisofthe_NOx_ԀSIPcallrule.Moreover,theSupremeCourthasgrantedEPAspetitionforcertiorariandthuswillbereviewingtheD.C.Circuitsdecision.Duetotheuncertaintycreatedbythependinglitigation,regardingwhetherthe8hourstandard_Ԁmaybe_fullyimplemented,EPAbelievesitisappropriatetostaythe8hourbasisfortheSIPcallrule,suchthatStatesandsourcesarenotrequiredtomoveforwardwith_implementing_controlmeasuresdesignedsolelyto_attain_Ԁthe8hourNAAQSatthistime.However,itisprematuretopresumethatimplementationofthe8hourstandardwillnotmoveforwardinthefuture.Thus,EPAbelievesthebestapproachatthistimeistostay,butnotwithdraw,the8hourbasisoftheSIPcallrule. ` WithrespecttotheclaimthatEPAneedstoadjusttheemissionbudgetstoreflectonlythoseemissionsreductionsneededtoachievethe1hourNAAQS,EPAnotesthatnoadjustmentsduetostayingthefindingsforthe8hourNAAQSarenecessary.TheEPAassessedeachStatescontributionforthe1hourNAAQSindependentofitsassessmentofthe *8&. Statescontributionforthe8hourNAAQS.See62FR60,326  (Nov.7,1997);63FR57,377,and57,395(Oct.27,1998).However,EPAultimatelydeterminedthatthe significantcontribution ofemissionsthateachStateneededtoaddress   wasthesameregardlessofwhetherthereductionswereneededforthe1hourstandardorthe8hourstandard.Therefore,EPApromulgatedonlyoneemissionsbudgetrelevantforeachState. ` Inaddition,EPAnotesthatthebudgetswerenotforthepurposeofensuringattainmentofeitherNAAQSindownwindStates.Rather,thebudgetswereforthepurposeofaddressingeachupwindStatessignificantcontributionto_nonattainment_Ԁindownwindareas.AsEPAnotedinthefinalSIPcallrule,allofthedownwind,1hour_nonattainment_Ԁareas(andmanyofthedownwindareasviolatingthe8hourstandard)generallywereexpectedtoneedadditionallocalemissionsreductionsbeyondthoserequiredbytheSIPcalltoreachattainmentoftherespectiveNAAQS.BecauseEPAsanalysisfocusedonaddressingtheemissionsthatsignificantlycontributetoadownwindareas_nonattainment_Ԁproblem(asprovidedundersection110(a)(2)(D)),ratherthanaddressingthelevelof_emissions_Ԁreductionsthatwouldbringadownwindareaintoattainmentforaparticularstandard,itisnotunexpectedthatthebudgetlevelswouldbethesameforthe1hourand p,'0 8hourstandards. Comment :One_commenter_ԀrecommendsthatEPAstaythe_NOx_ԀSIP X callruleinallrespectsuntilsuchtimeasthereisafinal,nonappealableresolutionofthelitigationontheSIPcallrule,andthatEPAgothroughnoticeandcomment_rulemaking_Ԁtoliftthestayafterthelitigationiscomplete.Another_commenter_ԀsuggeststhatEPAstaythe_NOx_SIPcallruleuntilboththeSIPcalllitigationandtheATA h  litigationarefinallyresolved.The_commenter_ԀexpressesconcernoverEPAseffortstoimplementthe_NOx_ԀSIPcallruleandEPAsruleundersection126oftheCAA(directlyregulatingsourcesof_NOx_)whilelitigationisstillpendingonthosecasesandonthetechnicalamendmentsregardingbudgetcorrections.The_commenter_Ԁsuggeststhatthependinglitigationmakesitvirtuallyimpossibleforsourcestoplanforcompliance. Response :This_rulemaking_Ԁconcernsalimitedissue!whether P  EPAshouldstaythe8hourbasisofthe_NOx_ԀSIPcallruleinlightofthecourtsdecisioninATAremandingthat "$ standard.Thatdecision,innoway,callsintoquestionthe1hourNAAQSandtheneedforStatestodevelop_SIPs_Ԁtoaddressthatstandard.Thus,thependingATAlitigation '#* doesnotjustifyastayofthefindingsundersection110basedonthe1hourstandard.Moreover,onJune22,2000, +X&. theD.C.CircuitlifteditsstayoftherequirementforStatestosubmit_SIPs_ԀinaccordancewiththeSIPcallruleandhasdeniedtherequestsforrehearingofitsdecisionintheSIPcalllitigation.WhilepartiesmayseekfurtherreviewofthatdecisionintheSupremeCourtandthechallengestothetechnicalcorrectionsarepending,EPAnotesthatthemerefactthatlitigationispendingregardinganAgencyactiondoesnotwarrantastayofthechallengedregulation.Asageneralmatter,regulationsremainineffectpendinglitigation. Comment :One_commenter_ԀexpressedsupportforEPAsproposal @ tostaythe8hourbasisforthe_NOx_ԀSIPcallrule.The_commenter_Ԁalsostatedthatrelianceonthe8hourNAAQSpriortodesignationofareasforthatstandardwaspremature. Response :TheEPAistakingfinalactionasproposedandas  supportedbythe_commenter_.InthefinalSIPcallrule,EPAdisagreedwiththe_commenter_spositionthatEPAmaynotrequireStatestoaddressinterstatetransportforaNAAQSpriortothetimeEPAdesignatesareasforthatstandard.ThatissuewasraisedintheSIPcalllitigationandthecourthasstayeditsconsiderationoftheissuebasedonEPAsdecisiontostaythe8hourbasisoftheSIPcallrule.ThatissuehasnotinfluencedEPAsdecisiontostay +X&. the8hourbasisfortheSIPcallruleandcouldbeconsideredbythecourtifandwhenEPAliftsitsstay. Comment :One_commenter_ԀclaimsthatEPA obfuscatesthe P interdependenceofthe1hourand8hourbasesforthe_NOx_SIPcallandSection126rulesbyclaimingthatthefindingsforeachstandardwere separate.The_commenter_believesthatEPAsbasisforboththeSIPcallruleandthesection126ruleisthe8hourNAAQS.The_commenter_ԀnotesthattheEPAcalculatedemissionsreductionsfrombaselinesinthe_NOx_ԀSIPcallruleassumeachievementofthe8hourNAAQS.Two_commenters_Ԁareconcernedthatthestayhasno;S effectsincesourceswillneedtoimplementallremainingportionsoftherule. Response :InthefinalSIPcallrule,EPAclearlystated X thatitindependentlyassessedsignificantcontributionforthe1hourand8hourozoneNAAQS.See62FR60,326;63FR  57,377,and57,395.Inrequestingthecourttostaythelimitedissuesraisedexclusivelyregardingthe8hourbasisfortheSIPcall,EPAalsoclearlyarticulatedthatthe8hourand1hourbaseswerewhollyindependentofeachotherandthat theemissionreductionsthatmustbeachieved,andtherequirementforStatestosubmit_SIPs_Ԁmeeting_NOx_budgetsarefullyandindependentlysupportedbyEPAsfindingsunderthe1hourNAAQSalone.MotionforStayof +X&. JudicialConsiderationofCertainIssuesRaisedInPetitionersBriefsat3,Michiganv.EPA,(No.981497, X D.C.Cir.)Nov.19,1999.ThecourtgrantedEPAsrequesttostayconsiderationofthe8hourbasisfortheSIPcallandupheldinmostsignificantrespectsthe1hourbasisfortheSIPcall.Nopartyhassoughtrehearingonthegroundsthatthe1hourstandardalonecannotsupporttheSIPcallrule. ` TheEPAagreeswiththe_commenters_Ԁthatthestayofthe8hourbasisoftherulewillhavenoeffectontheemissionsbudgetforthose19StatesandD.C.thatarestillcoveredbythe_NOx_ԀSIPcallbasedonthe1hourstandard.Asprovidedabove,EPAdeterminedthatthelevelofreductionsneededtoaddresssignificantcontributionforthe1hourNAAQSisthesameasthelevelneededtoaddressthe8hourNAAQSandthusthebudgetsarethesame._>7 XoXXXo  10      _ԀThus,  thestayhasnopracticaleffectontheSIPthatthese19StatesandD.C. willneedtosubmittoaddresstheSIPcall.  X  Comment :One_commenter_ԀclaimsthatEPAshouldprovideinthe P finalrule,asitdidinitssimilarstayofthe8hourbasisofthesection126rule,thatEPAwouldliftthestayofthe8hourbasisoftheSIPcallruleonlythroughnoticeandcommentrulemaking. Response :TheEPAagreesthatitwouldneedtoliftthestay h  throughrulemaking.Inthatrulemaking,EPAalsowouldconsiderwhethertomodifythefindingsbasedonthe8hourstandardinlightofthecourtsdecisionwithrespecttothefindingsforthe1hourstandard.#XYXXXohL#XoXXXY IV.AdministrativeRequirements     A.0 ` ExecutiveOrder12866:RegulatoryImpactAnalysis ` (#` (#  ` UnderExecutiveOrder12866,(58FR51735,October4,1993),thisactionisnota"significantregulatoryaction"andisthereforenotsubjecttoreviewbytheOfficeofManagementandBudget(OMB)becausethisactionissimplystayingitsfindinginthe_NOx_ԀSIPcallrelatedtothe8hourozonestandards.Thefinal_NOx_ԀSIPcallwassubmitted $& toOMBforreview.TheEPApreparedaregulatoryimpactanalysis(_RIA_)forthefinal_NOx_ԀSIPcalltitled RegulatoryImpactAnalysisforthe_NOx_ԀSIPCall,_FIP_,andSection126Petitions.The_RIA_ԀandanywrittencommentsfromOMBtoEPAandanywrittenEPAresponsestothosecommentsareincludedinthedocket.ThedocketisavailableforpublicinspectionattheEPAsAirDocketSection,whichislistedintheADDRESSESsectionofthispreamble.Thisactiondoesnotcreateanyadditionalimpactsbeyondwhatwaspromulgatedinthefinal_NOx_ԀSIPcall,therefore,noadditional_RIA_Ԁisneeded. B.UnfundedMandatesReformAct  8  ` Thisactionalsodoesnotimposeanyadditionalenforceableduty,containanyunfundedmandate,orimposeanysignificantoruniqueimpactonsmallgovernmentsasdescribedintheUnfundedMandatesReformActof1995(_UMRA_)(Pub.L.104-4).TheEPApreparedastatementforthefinal_NOx_ԀSIPcallrulethatwouldberequiredby_UMRA_Ԁifitsstatutoryprovisionsappliedandconsultedwithgovernmentalentitiesaswouldberequiredby_UMRA_.Becausetodaysactiondoesnotcreateanyadditionalmandates,nofurther_UMRA_Ԁanalysisisneeded.L cʽ((4L C.ExecutiveOrder13132:Federalism  '$, HH3{ WC4 <DL!!&)\+- 0d24XW ` ExecutiveOrder13132,entitled Federalism(64FR )H&. 43255,August10,1999),requiresEPAtodevelopanaccountableprocesstoensure meaningfulandtimelyinput ,)2 3{ 3  HH 3  byStateandlocalofficialsinthedevelopmentofregulatorypoliciesthathavefederalismimplications. PoliciesthathavefederalismimplicationsisdefinedintheExecutiveOrdertoincluderegulationsthathave substantialdirecteffectsontheStates,ontherelationshipbetweenthenationalgovernmentandtheStates,oronthedistributionofpowerandresponsibilitiesamongthevariouslevelsofgovernment. ` Undersection6ofExecutiveOrder13132,EPAmaynotissuearegulationthathasfederalismimplications,thatimposessubstantialdirectcompliancecosts,andthatisnotrequiredbystatute,unlesstheFederalgovernmentprovidesthefundsnecessarytopaythedirectcompliancecostsincurredbyStateandlocalgovernments,orEPAconsultswithStateandlocalofficialsearlyintheprocessofdevelopingtheproposedregulation.TheEPAalsomaynotissuearegulationthathasfederalismimplicationsandthatpreemptsStatelaw,unlesstheAgencyconsultswithStateandlocalofficialsearlyintheprocessofdevelopingtheproposedregulation.L 5h((cL ` Thisactiondoesnothavefederalismimplications.ItwillnothavesubstantialdirecteffectsontheStates,ontherelationshipbetweenthenationalgovernmentandtheStates,oronthedistributionofpowerandresponsibilitiesamongthevariouslevelsofgovernment,asspecifiedinExecutiveOrder13132.#XYXXXo#XoXXXYThisactionstaysEPAsfindingsin (-h)2 the_NOx_ԀSIPcallrulerelatedtothe8hourozoneNAAQSandimposesnoadditionalburdensbeyondthoseimposedbythefinal_NOx_ԀSIPcallrule.Thus,therequirementsofsection6oftheExecutiveOrderdonotapplytothisrule.    _ D._ԀExecutiveOrder13084:ConsultationandCoordination `  withIndianTribalGovernments   `   ` UnderExecutiveOrder13084,EPAmaynotissuearegulationthatisnotrequiredbystatute,thatsignificantlyoruniquelyaffectsthecommunitiesofIndiantribalgovernments,andthatimposessubstantialdirectcompliancecostsonthosecommunities,unlesstheFederalgovernmentprovidesthefundsnecessarytopaythedirectcompliancecostsincurredbythetribalgovernments,orEPAconsultswiththosegovernments.IfEPAcompliesbyconsulting,ExecutiveOrder13084requiresEPAtoprovidetoOMB,inaseparatelyidentifiedsectionofthepreambletotherule,adescriptionoftheextentofEPA'spriorconsultationwithrepresentativesofaffectedtribalgovernments,asummaryofthenatureoftheirconcerns,andastatementsupportingtheneedtoissuetheregulation.Inaddition,ExecutiveOrder13084requiresEPAtodevelopaneffectiveprocesspermittingelectedofficialsandotherrepresentativesofIndiantribalgovernments"toprovidemeaningfulandtimelyinputinthedevelopmentofregulatorypoliciesonmattersthatsignificantlyoruniquelyaffecttheircommunities." X-)2 ____ ` Today'sactiondoesnotsignificantlyoruniquelyaffectthecommunitiesofIndiantribalgovernments.TheEPAstatedinthefinal_NOx_ԀSIPcallrulethatExecutiveOrder13084didnotapplybecausethefinalruledoesnotsignificantlyoruniquelyaffectthecommunitiesofIndiantribalgovernmentsorcallonStatestoregulate_NOx_Ԁsourceslocatedontriballands.Accordingly,therequirementsofsection3(b)ofExecutiveOrder13084donotapplytothisrule. E.ExecutiveOrder12898:EnvironmentalJustice    ` Inaddition,thisactiondoesnotinvolvespecialconsiderationofenvironmentaljusticerelatedissuesasrequiredbyExecutiveOrder12898(59FR7629,February16,1994).Forthefinal_NOx_ԀSIPcall,theAgencyconductedageneralanalysisofthepotentialchangesinozoneandparticulatematterlevelsthatmaybeexperiencedbyminorityandlowincomepopulationsasaresultoftherequirementsoftherule.Thesefindingsarepresentedinthe_RIA_. F.RegulatoryFlexibilityAct(_RFA_),asamendedbytheSmall P#& BusinessRegulatoryEnforcementFairnessActof1996(_SBREFA_),5_USC_Ԁ601et.seq.  &#*  ` The_RFA_Ԁgenerallyrequiresanagencytopreparearegulatoryflexibilityanalysisofanyrulesubjecttonoticeandcomment_rulemaking_Ԁrequirementsunderthe + (0 AdministrativeProcedureActoranyotherstatuteunlesstheagencycertifiesthattherulewillnothaveasignificanteconomicimpactonasubstantialnumberofsmallentities.Smallentitiesincludesmallbusinesses,smallorganizations,andsmallgovernmentaljurisdictions. ` Forpurposesofassessingtheimpactsoftoday'sruleonsmallentities,smallentityisdefinedas:(1)asmallbusinessasdefinedintheSmallBusinessAdministrations(SBA)regulationsat13_CFR_Ԁ12.201 ;(2)asmallgovernmental @  jurisdictionthatisagovernmentofacity,county,town,schooldistrictorspecialdistrictwithapopulationoflessthan50,000;and(3)asmallorganizationthatisanynotforprofitenterprisewhichisindependentlyownedandoperatedandisnotdominantinitsfield. ` Afterconsideringtheeconomicimpactsoftodaysfinalrule onsmallentities,Icertifythatthisactionwillnot  haveasignificanteconomicimpactonasubstantialnumberofsmallentities.?M@XXo ("  #XoX@?M#& P  ` Thisaction  willnotimposeanyrequirementsonsmall !$ entities.  'P!\ThisactionstaysEPAsfindingsinthe_NOx_ԀSIP 8#x& _call_Ԁ_rule_Ԁrelatedtothe8hourozoneNAAQSanddoesnotitselfestablishrequirementsapplicabletosmallentities.  &"* G.ExecutiveOrder13045:ProtectionofChildrenfrom 0(p$, EnvironmentalHealthRisksandSafetyRisks  )0&. __ ` ExecutiveOrder13045: ProtectionofChildrenfromEnvironmentalHealthRisksandSafetyRisks(62FR19885, X-)2 April23,1997)appliestoanyrulethat(1)isdeterminedtobe economicallysignificantasdefinedunderExecutiveOrder12866,and(2)concernsanenvironmentalhealthorsafetyriskthatEPAhasreasontobelievemayhaveadisproportionateeffectonchildren.Iftheregulatoryactionmeetsbothcriteria,theAgencymustevaluatetheenvironmentalhealthorsafetyeffectsoftheplannedruleonchildren,andexplainwhytheplannedregulationispreferabletootherpotentiallyeffectiveandreasonablyfeasiblealternativesconsideredbytheagency. ` TheEPAinterpretsExecutiveOrder13045asapplyingonlytothoseregulatoryactionsthatarebasedonhealthorsafetyrisks,suchthattheanalysisrequiredundersection5-501oftheOrderhasthepotentialtoinfluencetheregulation.ThisruleisnotsubjecttoExecutiveOrder13045,becausethisactionisnot economicallysignificantasdefinedunderExecutiveOrder12866andtheAgencydoesnothavereasontobelievetheenvironmentalhealthrisksorsafetyrisksaddressedbythisactionpresentadisproportionaterisktochildren.#XYXXXo #XoXXXY 8#x&  H.NationalTechnologyTransferandAdvancementAct  $ !(  ` Inaddition,theNationalTechnologyTransferandAdvancementActof1997doesnotapplybecausetodaysactiondoesnotrequirethepublictoperformactivitiesconducivetotheuseofvoluntaryconsensusstandardsunderthatAct.TheEPAscompliancewiththesestatutesand @-)2 ExecutiveOrdersfortheunderlyingrule,thefinal_NOx_ԀSIPcall,isdiscussedinmoredetailin63FR5747781(October27,1998)._ I._ԀPaperworkReductionAct     ` TheEPAstatedinthefinal_NOx_ԀSIPcallthatan x  informationcollectionrequestwaspending.Todaysactionimposesnoadditionalburdensbeyondthoseimposedbythefinal_NOx_ԀSIPcall. Anyissuesrelevanttosatisfactionof p  therequirementsofthePaperworkReductionActwillberesolvedduringreviewandapprovalofthependinginformationcollectionrequestforthe_NOx_ԀSIPcall.   J.JudicialReview  (h  ` Section307(b)(1)oftheCAAindicateswhichFederalCourtsofAppealhavevenueforpetitionsofreviewoffinalactionsbyEPA.Thissectionprovides,inpart,thatpetitionsforreviewmustbefiledintheCourtofAppealsfortheDistrictofColumbiaCircuitif(_i_)theagencyactionconsistsof nationallyapplicableregulationspromulgated,orfinalactiontaken,bytheAdministrator,or(ii)suchactionislocallyorregionallyapplicable,if suchactionisbasedonadeterminationofnationwidescopeoreffectandifintakingsuchactiontheAdministrator_finds_Ԁandpublishesthatsuchactionisbasedonsuchadetermination. ` Anyfinalactionrelatedtothe_NOx_ԀSIPcallis +(0 ;S ; ;  nationallyapplicablewithinthemeaningofsection307(b)(1).Asaninitialmatter,throughthisrule,EPAinterpretssection110oftheCAAinawaythatcouldaffectfutureactionsregulatingthetransportofpollutants.Inaddition,the_NOx_ԀSIPcallrequires22StatesandtheDistrictofColumbiatodecreaseemissionsof_NOx_.The_NOx_SIPcallalsoisbasedonacommoncoreoffactualfindingsandanalysesconcerningthetransportofozoneanditsprecursorsbetweenthedifferentStatessubjecttothe_NOx_SIPcall.Finally,EPAhasestablisheduniform_approvability_ԀcriteriathatwouldbeappliedtoallStatessubjecttothe_NOx_ԀSIPcall.Forthesereasons,theAdministratorhasalsodeterminedthatanyfinalactionregardingthe_NOx_ԀSIPcallisofnationwidescopeandeffectforpurposesofsection307(b)(1).Thus,anypetitionsforreviewoffinalactionsregardingthe_NOx_ԀSIPcallmustbefiledintheCourtofAppealsfortheDistrictofColumbiaCircuitwithin60daysfromthedatefinalactionispublishedintheFederalRegister. p      T!$  L 8((L 3   32  K  .3  0 `   CongressionalReviewAct 3݌"x&` (#` (# Ќ   ` TheCongressionalReviewAct,5U.S.C.801etseq.,asaddedbytheSmallBusinessRegulatoryEnforcementFairnessActof1996,generallyprovidesthatbeforearulemaytakeeffect,theagencypromulgatingtherulemustsubmitarulereport,whichincludesacopyoftherule,toeachHouseoftheCongressandtotheComptrollerGeneralof -)2 theUnitedStates.TheEPAwillsubmitareportcontainingthisruleandotherrequiredinformationtotheU.S.Senate,theU.S.HouseofRepresentatives,andtheComptrollerGeneraloftheUnitedStatespriortopublicationoftheruleintheFederalRegister.A majorrulecannottake   effectuntil60daysafteritispublishedintheFederal j H  Register.Thisactionisnota"majorrule"asdefinedby5   U.S.C.804(2).Thisrulewillbeeffective_ [Insert_Ԁ_date   30daysfrom___Ԁpublication] . zX  #XYXXXo#XoXXXY#XYXXXo#XoXXXY #XYXXXoA#XoXXXY___ B- (0 __ԇ_____  _NOx_ԀSIPCall8HourStay!Page30of31   `  ListofSubjects40CFRPart51#Xd&XXXvg#XvgXXXd&Airpollutioncontrol,Administrativepracticeand  H  procedure,Carbonmonoxide,Environmentalprotection,Intergovernmentalrelations,Nitrogendioxide,Ozone,Particulatematter,Reportingandrecordkeepingrequirements,Sulfuroxides,Transportation,Volatileorganiccompounds#Xd&XXXvg#XvgXXXd&.  D,_ated_:   _______________________________Carol_ԀM._Browner,_ h    Administrator,_#Xd&XXXvg#XvgXXXd&  T! ___  #$ _Forthereasonssetforthinthepreamble,part51ofchapter1oftitle40oftheCodeofFederalRegulationsisamendedasfollows: PART51!REQUIREMENTSFORPREPARATION,ADOPTION,AND $  SUBMITTALOFIMPLEMENTATIONPLANS   `  1.Theauthoritycitationforpart51continuestoreadasfollows:̀ ` Authority:42U.S.C.74017671q.  SubpartGControlStrategy2.Section51.121isamendedbyaddingparagraph(q)toreadasfollows: 51.121FindingsandrequirementsforsubmissionofStateimplementationplanrevisionsrelatingtoemissionsofoxidesofnitrogen.  |  *****(q)StayofFindingsofSignificantContributionwith !`$ respecttothe8hourstandard.Notwithstandinganyother # & provisionsofthissubpart,theeffectivenessofparagraph(a)(2)isstayed._#Xd&XXXvg#_