Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 56 / Friday, March 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 13723 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312)886–5824. 

4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Criteria 

Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

Steve Rothblatt, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E7–5360 Filed 3–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2007–0091, FRL–8291–1] 

Proposed Finding 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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to find 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 proposed 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 in these 

reservations. EPA is also proposing that 

these areas have failed to attain the PM–

10 NAAQS. Thus, this proposed rule 

could potentially affect these tribes. 

Accordingly, EPA has notified the 

affected tribal leaders of this proposed 

rule and is inviting consultation with 

interested tribes. 

If EPA finalizes, after public notice 

and comment, these failure to attain 

findings, Arizona and California must 

submit by December 31, 2007, plan 

provisions that provide for attainment of 

the 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: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 23, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2007–0091, by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking portal: 

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

on-line instructions. 

(2) E-mail: lo.doris@epa.gov 

(3) Mail or deliver: Doris Lo (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through the 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an anonymous 

access system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 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 directly 

below. 

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; and for air quality 

monitoring issues contact Bob Pallarino, 

EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4128, 

pallarino.bob@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

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

EPA. 

I. Background 

The NAAQS are levels for certain 

ambient air pollutants set by EPA to 

protect public health and welfare. PM–

10 is among the ambient air pollutants 

for which EPA has established healthbased standards. PM–10 causes adverse 

health effects by penetrating deep in the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
13724 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 56 / Friday, March 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

lungs, aggravating the cardiopulmonary 

system. Children, the elderly, and 

people with asthma and heart 

conditions are the most vulnerable. 

On July 1, 1987 EPA revised the 

health-based national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) (52 FR 

24672), replacing standards for 

suspended particulates with new 

standards applying only to particulate 

matter up to ten microns in diameter 

(PM–10). At that time, EPA established 

two PM–10 standards, the annual 

standard and a 24-hour standard. On 

December 18, 2006, EPA revoked the 

annual PM–10 standard but retained the 

24-hour PM–10 standard. 71 FR 61144 

(October 17, 2006). The 24-hour PM–10 

standard of 150 micrograms per cubic 

meter (μg/m3) is attained when the 

expected number of days per calendar 

year with a 24-hour average 

concentration above 150 μg/m3, as 

determined in accordance with 

appendix K to 40 CFR part 50, is equal 

to or less than one. 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 

CFR part 50, appendix K. 

On the date of enactment of the 1990 

Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA or the 

Act), PM–10 areas, including the 

Phoenix and Owens Valley 

nonattainment areas, meeting the 

qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of 

the amended Act were designated 

nonattainment by operation of law. 56 

FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). EPA 

codified the boundaries of the Phoenix 

nonattainment area at 40 CFR 81.303 

and the Owens Valley nonattainment 

area at 40 CFR 81.305. 

Once an area is designated 

nonattainment for PM–10, section 188 

of the CAA outlines the process for 

classifying the area and establishes the 

area’s attainment deadline. In 

accordance with section 188(a), at the 

time of designation, all PM–10 

nonattainment areas, including the 

Phoenix and Owens Valley 

nonattainment areas, were initially 

classified as moderate. 

Section 188(b)(1) of the Act provides 

that moderate areas can subsequently be 

reclassified as serious before the 

applicable moderate area attainment 

date if at any time EPA determines that 

the area cannot ‘‘practicably’’ attain the 

PM–10 NAAQS by the moderate area 

attainment deadline, December 31, 

1994. On January 8, 1993, EPA made 

such a determination and reclassified 

the Owens Valley nonattainment area as 

serious. 58 FR 3334. 

Moreover, a moderate area must be 

reclassified by operation of law if EPA 

determines after the applicable 

attainment date that, based on air 

quality, the area was not in attainment 

after that date. CAA sections 179(c) and 

188(b)(2). On May 10, 1996, EPA 

published such a reclassification of the 

Phoenix nonattainment area as serious. 

61 FR 21372. 

As serious PM–10 nonattainment 

areas, the Phoenix and Owens Valley 

nonattainment areas acquired a new 

attainment deadline of no later than 

December 31, 2001. CAA section 

188(c)(2). However, CAA section 188(e) 

allows states to apply for up to a 5-year 

extension of the serious area attainment 

deadline of December 31, 2001. In order 

to obtain the extension, there must be a 

showing that: (1) Attainment by 2001 

would be impracticable, (2) the state 

complied with all requirements and 

commitments pertaining to the area in 

the implementation plan for the area, 

and (3) the state demonstrates that the 

plan for the area includes the most 

stringent measures that are included in 

the implementation plan of any state or 

are achieved in practice in any state, 

and can feasibly be implemented in the 

area. Both Arizona and California 

requested extensions under CAA section 

188(e) to December 31, 2006. On July 

24, 2002, EPA granted Arizona’s request 

to extend the attainment date for the 

Phoenix nonattainment area to 

December 31, 2006. 67 FR 48718. On 

September 3, 1999 EPA granted the 

request to extend the attainment date for 

the Owens Valley nonattainment area to 

December 31, 2006. 64 FR 48305. 

For a more detailed discussion of the 

history of PM–10 planning for the 

Phoenix and Owens Valley 

nonattainment areas, please refer to EPA 

actions on the PM–10 state 

implementation plans (SIPs) for these 

areas. 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002); 64 

FR 48305 (September 3, 1999). 

II. Proposed Findings of Failure To 

Attain 

A. Clean Air Act Requirements for 

Findings of Failure To Attain 

EPA has the responsibility, pursuant 

to sections 179(c) and 189(b)(2) of the 

Act, to determine within 6 months of 

the applicable attainment date (i.e., by 

June 30, 2007), whether the Phoenix and 

Owens Valley nonattainment areas have 

attained the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS. 

Section 179(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that these determinations are to be 

based upon an area’s ‘‘air quality as of 

the attainment date’’ and section 

188(b)(2) is consistent with this 

requirement. EPA determines whether 

an area’s air quality is meeting the PM–

10 NAAQS based upon air quality data 

gathered at monitoring sites in the 

nonattainment area and entered into 

EPA’s Aerometric Information Retrieval 

System (AIRS). These data are reviewed 

to determine the area’s air quality status 

in accordance with EPA regulations at 

40 CFR part 50, appendix K. 

As stated above, pursuant to appendix 

K, attainment of the 24-hour PM–10 

NAAQS is achieved when the expected 

number of exceedances per year at each 

monitoring site is less than or equal to 

one. A total of three consecutive years 

of clean air quality data is generally 

necessary to show attainment of the 24- 

hour PM–10 standard. A complete year 

of air quality data as referred to in 40 

CFR part 50, appendix K, comprises all 

four calendar quarters with each quarter 

containing data from at least 75 percent 

of the scheduled sampling days. 

There are two basic types of PM–10 

monitors, manual samplers and 

automated continuous analyzers. 

Manual samplers use a filter to collect 

PM–10 that must be weighed in a 

laboratory before a PM–10 concentration 

can be determined. Automated 

continuous analyzers run continuously 

and can produce hourly average 

concentrations of PM–10 in close to 

real-time. Most PM–10 monitors do not 

record a sample every day of the year, 

either by design or because of 

operational or maintenance issues. 

Manual PM–10 samplers generally run 

on a one-in-every-six day schedule. 

Automated analyzers generally produce 

a PM–10 24-hour average concentration 

every day, but as noted above, 

operational or maintenance issues may 

effect an automated analyzer’s ability to 

produce a PM–10 concentration every 

day of the year. 

Because attainment of the PM–10 

NAAQS is based on the number of 

expected exceedances per year, it is 

necessary to adjust the number of 

observed exceedances per year to 

account for any days for which a 24- 

hour PM–10 concentration is not 

available. This adjustment results in an 

estimated number of expected 

exceedances per year and is made in 

accordance with the provisions of 40 

CFR part 50, appendix K, section 3.1. In 

two simple examples, if a PM–10 

instrument operates every day of the 

year, then no adjustment is necessary 

and the observed number of 

exceedances will be equal to the 

estimated number of exceedances. If a 

sampler operates on a one-in-every-six 

day schedule, then the number of 

observed exceedances will be adjusted 

to account for the five days with no 

samples. In this example, one observed 

exceedance would be the equivalent of 

six estimated exceedances. 

Most PM–10 samplers in the Phoenix 

nonattainment area originally operated 

on a one-in-six day schedule. A number 

of monitoring sites in the Phoenix 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 56 / Friday, March 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 13725 

nonattainment area recorded 

exceedances while operating on this 

schedule. 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, 

section 3.1(f) states that EPA will not 

perform the estimated exceedance 

adjustment described above if a monitor 

meets certain conditions, including a 

change in the sampling frequency to 

every day monitoring. In an effort to 

reduce the potential for overestimating 

the number of expected exceedances, 

the Maricopa County Air Quality 

Department began operating some sites 

on an every day schedule as allowed 

under the provisions of appendix K. All 

of the PM–10 monitors in the Owens 

Valley network operate every day. 

Tables 1 and 2 in section II.B. below 

indicate the operating schedule for each 

of the violating monitors in the Phoenix 

and Owens Valley nonattainment areas. 

As summarized in Tables 1 and 2 in 

section II.B. below, there are a number 

of PM–10 monitoring sites in the 

Phoenix and Owens Valley 

nonattainment areas that continue to 

violate the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS. If a 

site averages more than one estimated 

exceedance per year during the threeyear attainment period, it is in violation 

of the NAAQS (see far right columns of 

Tables 1 and 2). 

In the Phoenix nonattainment area, 

five sites are in violation of the 24-hour 

PM–10 NAAQS: West Phoenix, 

Greenwood, Higley, West 43rd Avenue, 

and Bethune School. In the Owens 

Valley nonattainment area, seven sites 

continue to violate the PM–10 NAAQS: 

Lone Pine, Olancha-Walker Creek Road, 

Olancha-Dirty Sox, Olancha-Flat Rock, 

Olancha-Shell Cut, Olancha-Bill Stanley 

Site, and Keeler. 

B. Ambient Air Monitoring Data 

TABLE 1.—PHOENIX NONATTAINMENT AREA PM–10 DATA SUMMARY 2004–20061

[Sites in Violation of the 24-Hour PM–10 NAAQS] 

Site name / AQS ID No. Operating schedule 1st Max conc. 

μg/m3

Number of observed 

exceedances 2

Number of estimated 

exceedances 

Average number of estimated 

exceedances 

per year 

West Phoenix, 04–013–0019 ......... 1 in 6 / Every day ........................... 155 1 6 2 

Greenwood, 04–013–3010 ............. 1 in 6 / Every day ........................... 173 2 7 2 .3 

Higley 04–013–4006 ....................... 1 in 6 / Everyday ............................ 170 3 3 .6 1 .2 

West 43rd Ave, 04–013–4009 ........ 1 in 6 / Every day ........................... 260 26 26 8 .7 

Bethune School, 04–013–8006 ...... 1 in 6 .............................................. 198 1 6 .4 2 .1 

1The data in Tables 1 and 2 for both nonattainment areas are only for the period January 1, 2004 through September 30, 2006. EPA generally 

uses a complete three-year set of data in making nonattainment/attainment determinations. EPA does not currently have the data for the last 

quarter of 2006 and the State is not required to submit them until March 31, 2007. See 40 CFR 58.16(b); 71 FR 61236 (October 17, 2006). However, when less data are sufficient to unambiguously establish nonattainment, 40 CFR 50, appendix K, section 2.3(c) allows EPA to determine 

that a monitor is in violation of the PM–10 NAAQS. 2There were additional exceedences observed in the Phoenix nonattainment area that are not included in this table. The State of Arizona requested, as allowed by EPA’s Natural Events Policy (Memorandum entitled ‘‘Areas Affected by PM–10 Natural Events’’ from Mary D. Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation to Regional Air Division Directors, May 30, 1996), that the Agency exclude certain observed 

exceedances from our nonattainment determination because they were considered high wind natural events. The letters from the State requesting that we exclude or ‘‘flag’’ certain exceedances and EPA’s responses concurring with the State’s requests are included in the docket accompanying this rulemaking. 

TABLE 2.—OWENS VALLEY NONATTAINMENT AREA PM–10 DATA SUMMARY 2004–2006 3

[Sites in Violation of the 24-Hour PM–10 NAAQS] 

Site name / AQS ID No. Operating schedule 1st Max conc. 

μg/m3

Number of observed 

exceedances 

Number of estimated 

exceedances 

Average number of estimated 

exceedances 

per year 

Lone Pine, 06–027–0004 ............... Every day ....................................... 349 5 5 .1 1 .7 

Olancha Walker Creek Road, 06– 

027–0021.

Every day ....................................... 407 11 11 3 .7 

Olancha, Dirty Sox, 06–027–0022 Every day ....................................... 4471 54 54 18 

Olancha, Flat Rock, 06–027–0024 Every day ....................................... 6171 11 11 .8 3 .9 

Olancha, Shell Cut, 06–027–0025 Every day ....................................... 6846 43 43 14 .3 

Olancha, Bill Stanley Site, 06–027– 

0026.

Every day ....................................... 879 6 7 2 .3 

Keeler, 06–027–1003 ..................... Every day ....................................... 3322 27 27 9 

3See footnote 1. 

C. Tribal Lands 

EPA intends to take final action to 

determine whether the Phoenix and 

Owens Valley nonattainment areas have 

attained the PM–10 NAAQS following 

notice and comment. We believe that 

the plain language of sections 179(c)(1) 

and 188(b)(2) mandates that we make 

such findings with respect to these 

areas. We also believe that, as a matter 

of EPA’s federal implementation of 

relevant provisions of the CAA over 

Indian country within the Phoenix and 

Owens Valley nonattainment areas, the 

findings of failure to attain should apply 

to these areas of Indian country. PM–10 

continues to be a pervasive pollution 

problem in the Phoenix and Owens 

Valley nonattainment areas. PM–10 can 

be transported into an area from 

pollution sources found many miles 

away from its source. Therefore, EPA 

recommends that boundaries for 

nonattainment areas be drawn to 

encompass both areas with direct 

sources of the pollution problem as well 

as nearby areas in the same airshed. 

EPA believes that this approach best 

ensures public health protection from 

the adverse effects of PM–10 pollution. 

Therefore, it is generally 

counterproductive from an air quality 

and planning perspective to segregate 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
13726 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 56 / Friday, March 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

land areas located well within the 

boundaries of a nonattainment area, 

such as the three Indian reservations in 

the Phoenix nonattainment area and the 

four Indian reservations in the Owens 

Valley nonattainment area. Moreover, 

violations of the PM–10 standard, which 

are measured and modeled throughout 

each of the nonattainment areas, as well 

as shared meteorologic conditions, 

would dictate the same result. EPA 

does, however, recognize the 

significance of Indian country 

boundaries within the nonattainment 

areas and, as described below, will 

consult with the affected Tribes 

regarding this finding of failure to attain 

the NAAQS and their Indian country. 

III. Summary of Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Phoenix and Owens Valley 

nonattainment areas did not attain the 

24-hour PM–10 NAAQS by the 

December 31, 2006 attainment deadline 

as discussed above in section II. 

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 

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 if 

EPA’s proposed findings of failure to 

attain are finalized. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

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 proposed 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 

proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 will be 

consulting with all interested tribes, as 

provided for by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). EPA 

will ensure that each tribe is contacted 

and given the opportunity to enter into 

consultation on a government-togovernment basis. This proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 

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 proposed 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.). 

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: March 15, 2007. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E7–5357 Filed 3–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 433 

[CMS 2275–P] 

RIN 0938–AO80 

Medicaid Program; Health CareRelated Taxes 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS