Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 31183 

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. 

Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have 

questions concerning the provisions of 

this Proposed Rule or options for 

compliance are encourage to contact the 

point of contact listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this 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 rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this 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 concluded that there 

are no factors in this case that would 

limit the use of a categorical exclusion 

under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. 

Therefore, this rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g) of the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. 

A final ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Check List’’ and a final ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ will be 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard has amended 

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 § 165.T09–013 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–013 Safety Zone, Kenosha 

Harbor, Kenosha, WI. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

temporary safety zone: All waters of 

Lake Michigan 2,300 yards north of 

Kenosha Breakwater Light (Lightlist 

number 20430) and from the shoreline 

to 1,500 yards east Kenosha Breakwater 

Light (Lightlist number 20430) and 

bounded by a line with of point origin 

at 42°36′29′′ N, 087°47′17′′ W; then west 

to 42°36′29′′ N, 087°49′07′′ W; then 

south along the shoreline to 42°35′19′′ 

N, 087°48′41′′ W; then east, northeast to 

42°35′24′′ N, 087°47′17′′ W; then north 

to the point of origin (NAD 83). 

(b) Effective period. This regulation is 

effective from 8 a.m. (local) on June 19, 

2007 to 6 p.m. (local) on June 20, 2007. 

(c) Enforcement Period. This 

regulation will be enforced from 8 a.m. 

(local) to 6 p.m. (local) on June 19, 2007 

and from 8 a.m. (local) to 6 p.m. (local) 

on June 20, 2007. 

(d) Regulations. (1) In accordance 

with the general regulations in section 

165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, 

or anchoring within this safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or 

his designated on-scene representative. 

(2) This safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port 

Lake Michigan or his designated onscene representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port is any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer who has been designated by the 

Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 

The on-scene representative of the 

Captain of the Port will be aboard either 

a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary 

vessel. The Captain of the Port or his 

designated on-scene representative may 

be contacted via VHF Channel 16. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone shall 

contact the Captain of the Port Lake 

Michigan or his on-scene representative 

to obtain permission to do so. Vessel 

operators given permission to enter or 

operate in the safety zone must comply 

with all directions given to them by the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his 

on-scene representative. 

Dated: May 16, 2007. 

Bruce C. Jones, 

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

Port Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. E7–10906 Filed 6–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2007–0091, FRL–8322–5] 

Findings of Failure To Attain; State of 

Arizona, Phoenix Nonattainment Area; 

State of California, Owens Valley 

Nonattainment Area; Particulate Matter 

of 10 Microns or Less 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing its findings 

that the Phoenix Planning Area 

(Phoenix nonattainment area) and the 

Owens Valley Planning Area (Owens 

Valley nonattainment area) did not 

attain the 24-hour National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter of 10 microns or less 

(PM–10) by the deadline mandated in 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), 

December 31, 2006. These findings are 

based on monitored air quality data for 

the PM–10 NAAQS from 2004 through 

September 2006. 

Several Indian tribes have 

reservations located within the 

boundaries of the Phoenix and Owens 

Valley nonattainment areas. EPA 

implements CAA provisions for 

determining whether such areas have 

attained the NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment deadline. After affording the 

affected tribal leaders the opportunity to 

consult with EPA on its proposed 

actions, the Agency is also finding that 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES
31184 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1Table 1 in the proposed rule (‘‘Phoenix 

Nonattainment Area PM–10 Data Summary 2004–

2006 Sites in Violation of the 24-hour PM–10 

NAAQS’’) provides details on the number of 

observed and estimated exceedances recorded at 

five monitoring sites in the Phoenix nonattainment 

area from January 2004 through September 2006. 72 

FR at 13725. While the attainment status of the 

monitors did not change based on the inclusion of 

data from October through December 2006, we no 

longer consider one of the sites listed in Table 1, 

Higley (AQS# 04–013–4006), to be in violation of 

the NAAQS. As indicated in footnote 2 of the 

proposed rule, EPA has concurred with several of 

Arizona’s requests to exclude certain exceedances 

of the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS from consideration 

in our nonattainment finding because these 

exceedances were due to exceptional or natural 

events. Id. Since we prepared the proposed rule, 

EPA has also concurred with Arizona’s request to 

exclude two exceedance days at the Higley monitor 

(April 14 and 15, 2006) as being due to natural 

events. (March 14, 2007 letter to Nancy C. Wrona, 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality from 

Sean Hogan, EPA). When these exceedances are 

excluded, the average annual estimated number of 

exceedances at Higley drops from 1.2 per year to 

1.0 per year. The standard is attained when the 

estimated number of exceedances is less than or 

equal to one per year. See 40 CFR 50.6(a). However, 

even with the exclusion of the Higley data, the 

Phoenix nonattainment area is still in violation of 

the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS based on the 

exceedances listed in Table 1 for the other four 

sites. 

the tribal areas have failed to attain the 

24-hour PM–10 NAAQS. 

As a result of these failures to attain 

findings, Arizona and California must 

submit by December 31, 2007, plan 

provisions that provide for attainment of 

the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS and that 

achieve 5 percent annual reductions in 

PM–10 or PM–10 precursor emissions as 

required by CAA section 189(d). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on July 6, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2007–0091 for 

this action. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

Phoenix issues contact Doris Lo, EPA 

Region IX, (415) 972–3959, 

lo.doris@epa.gov; for Owens Valley 

issues contact Larry Biland, EPA Region 

IX, (415) 947–4132, 

biland.larry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA. 

I. Proposed Action and Subsequent Air 

Quality Data 

On March 23, 2007, EPA proposed to 

find that the Phoenix and Owens Valley 

nonattainment areas failed to attain the 

24-hour PM–10 NAAQS by the CAA 

deadline, December 31, 2006. For 

details on the background and air 

quality data supporting these proposed 

findings, please see the proposed rule. 

72 FR 13725. 

In our proposed rule we noted that 

the data on which we based our 

proposed findings of failure to attain 

were collected from January 2004 

through September 2006. EPA normally 

uses three complete calendar years of 

data to determine an area’s attainment 

status. However, when less data are 

sufficient to unambiguously establish 

nonattainment, 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K, section 2.3(c) allows EPA 

to determine that a monitor is in 

violation of the PM–10 NAAQS. In the 

case of the Phoenix and Owens Valley 

nonattainment areas, two years and nine 

months of data were available at the 

time of the proposed rule and clearly 

indicated that the areas were in 

violation of the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS. 

Thereafter Arizona and California have 

submitted data for October through 

December 2006 to EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS) database. These data 

indicate that there have been no 

additional exceedances of the PM–10 

standard in the Phoenix and Owens 

Valley areas.1 Therefore, the inclusion 

of these data does not affect EPA’s 

proposed nonattainment findings for 

these areas. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

By letters dated March 15, 2007, EPA 

invited the Indian tribes located within 

the boundaries of the Phoenix and 

Owens Valley nonattainment areas to 

consult with us on the proposed 

findings. We received no response from 

the tribes. Moreover, EPA did not 

receive any adverse comments regarding 

the findings of failure to attain. Below 

is a summary of the comments we 

received and our responses. 

Comments regarding Phoenix: In 

general, commenters agreed with EPA’s 

proposed nonattainment finding for the 

Phoenix nonattainment area. Two 

commenters wanted EPA to impose 

sanctions because the area has received 

attainment date extensions and has still 

failed to achieve the attainment 

deadline. 

Response: The consequence of the 

Phoenix nonattainment area’s failure to 

attain the 24-hour PM–10 standard by 

December 31, 2006 is a finding of failure 

to attain that results in new PM–10 

planning requirements and deadlines. 

See CAA sections 179(c) and 189(d). 

Under the CAA, failure to meet 

attainment deadlines does not result in 

the imposition of sanctions. However, 

under CAA section 179(a) and (b), if 

EPA determines that Arizona fails to 

submit a new plan by December 31, 

2007, or determines that such a plan is 

incomplete, or if EPA disapproves such 

a plan in whole or in part, the Agency 

must impose offset or highway 

sanctions unless the deficiency has been 

corrected within 18 months. 

Comment regarding Owens Valley: 

EPA received comments on the history 

of the Owens Valley nonattainment 

area’s PM–10 nonattainment problem 

and the controls undertaken and 

committed to by the City of Los Angeles. 

Response: EPA appreciates the 

information. The Great Basin Unified 

Air Pollution Control District and the 

City of Los Angeles will need to 

continue to work together to attain the 

PM–10 standard in the Owens Valley 

nonattainment area. 

III. EPA Action 

EPA is finding that the Phoenix and 

Owens Valley nonattainment areas did 

not attain the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS 

by the December 31, 2006 attainment 

deadline. 

Under section 189(d) of the Act, 

serious PM–10 nonattainment areas that 

fail to attain are required to submit 

within 12 months of the applicable 

attainment date, ‘‘plan revisions which 

provide for attainment of the PM–10 air 

quality standard and, from the date of 

such submission until attainment, for an 

annual reduction in PM–10 or PM–10 

precursor emissions within the area of 

not less than 5 percent of the amount of 

such emissions as reported in the most 

recent inventory prepared for such 

area.’’

In accordance with CAA section 

179(d)(3), the attainment deadline 

applicable to an area that misses the 

serious area attainment date is as soon 

as practicable, but no later than 5 years 

from the publication date of the 

nonattainment finding notice. EPA may, 

however, extend the attainment 

deadline to the extent it deems 

appropriate for a period no greater than 

10 years from the publication date, 

‘‘considering the severity of 

nonattainment and the availability and 

feasibility of pollution control 

measures.’’ In addition to the attainment 

demonstration and 5 percent 

requirements, the plans under section 

189(d) for the Phoenix and Owens 

Valley nonattainment areas must 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 31185 

address all applicable requirements of 

the CAA, including sections 110(a), 

172(c), 176(c) and 189(c)(1). 

Because the applicable attainment 

date for both nonattainment areas was 

December 31, 2006, under section 

189(d), the submittal deadline for the 

plans will be December 31, 2007. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action in and of itself 

establishes no new requirements, it 

merely notes that the air quality in the 

Phoenix nonattainment area and the 

Owens Valley nonattainment area did 

not meet the federal health standard for 

PM–10 by the CAA deadline. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this rule does not in 

and of itself establish new requirements, 

EPA believes that it is questionable 

whether a requirement to submit a SIP 

revision constitutes a federal mandate. 

The obligation for a State to revise its 

SIP arises out of sections 110(a), 179(d), 

and 189(d) of the CAA and is not legally 

enforceable by a court of law, and at 

most is a condition for continued 

receipt of highway funds. Therefore, it 

is possible to view an action requiring 

such a submittal as not creating any 

enforceable duty within the meaning of 

section 421(5)(9a)(I) of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 

658(a)(I)). Even if it did, the duty could 

be viewed as falling within the 

exception for the condition of Federal 

assistance under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of 

UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)(I)). 

Therefore, today’s action does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

Several Indian tribes have 

reservations located within the 

boundaries of the Phoenix and Owens 

Valley nonattainment areas. EPA is 

responsible for the implementation of 

federal Clean Air Act programs in 

Indian country, including findings of 

failure to attain. EPA has notified the 

affected tribal officials and consulted 

with all interested tribes, as provided 

for by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000). EPA 

contacted each tribe and gave them the 

opportunity to enter into consultation 

on a government-to-government basis. 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action does not 

in and of itself create any new 

requirements and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045, 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. Because these findings of 

failure to attain are factual 

determinations based on air quality 

considerations, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by August 6, 2007. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: May 24, 2007. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E7–10857 Filed 6–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R07–RCRA–2006–0923; FRL–8322–6] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is granting a petition 

submitted by the Ford Motor Company 

Kansas City Assembly Plant (Ford) to 

exclude (or delist) a wastewater 

treatment plant (WWTP) sludge 

generated by Ford in Claycomo, 

Missouri, from the lists of hazardous 

wastes. This final rule responds to the 

petition submitted by Ford to delist 

F019 WWTP sludge generated from the 

facility’s waste water treatment plant. 

After careful analysis and use of the 

Delisting Risk Assessment Software 

(DRAS), EPA has concluded the 

petitioned waste is not hazardous waste. 

This exclusion applies to 2,000 cubic 

yards per year of the F019 WWTP 

sludge. Accordingly, this final rule 

excludes the petitioned waste from the 

requirements of hazardous waste 

regulations under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

when it is disposed in a Subtitle D 

Landfill. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on June 

6, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R07–RCRA–2006–0923. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES