+(,121/,1(

Citation: 72 Fed. Reg. 31183 2007 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Tue Nov 6 13:49:49 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Regipter/Vol. 72, No. 108/Wednesday, June 6, 2007/Rules and Regulations

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 M16475.1D

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.

m 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

a 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.

m 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 42036'29" N, 087°47"17 " W; then west

to 42036'29 " N, 087049'07" W; then

south along the shoreline to 42°35'19"

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

42035'24 " N, 087047'17 " 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

opera tors 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-lO) 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-la 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

31183

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

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-RO9-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 ligted 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

nonattainrment areas failed to attain the

24-hour PM-1a 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-la 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-1a

standard in the Phoenix and Owens

Valley areas.' 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 nonattainrent area's failure to

attain the. 24-hour PM-10 standard by

I Table 1 in the proposed rule ("Phoenix

Nonattainment Area PM-la Data Summary 2004-

2006 Sites in Violation of the 24-hour PM-la

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 Octobef 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 exceednces

of the 24-hour PM-la 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-la NAAQS based on the

exceedances listed in Table 1 for the other four

sites.

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-l0 standard in the Owens Valley

nonattainment area.

MI. 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

31184

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 31184 2007
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 108/Wednesday, June 6, 2007/Rules and Regulations

address all appliable 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

silch 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 LX.

[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 vaste.

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,

31185

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 31185 2007