# + 2

(,1 1/,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, onthe 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 oroptions for compliance are encourage to contact the point ofcontact 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 andis not likely to have a significant adverse effect

on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator ofthe Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement ofEnergy 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 ofwhy using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications ofmaterials, 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 ofvoluntary consensus standards.


### Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D and Department ofHomeland 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 ofa categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 ofthe Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) ofthe 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 ofSubjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

mForthereasons discussed inthe 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 citationforpart 165 continues to-read asfollows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231;46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33CFR 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.

m2. 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 ofpoint 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 thepoint oforigin (NAD 83).

(b)Effectiveperiod.This regulation is effective from 8 a.m. (local) onJune 19, 2007 to 6 p.m. (local) on June 20, 2007.

(c)EnforcementPeriod. 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)

onJune 20, 2007.

(d) Regulations.(1)In accordance withthe general regulations in section 165.23 ofthis part, entry into, .transiting,

or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized bythe Captain ofthePort Lake Michigan, or his designated on-scene representative.

(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted bythe Captain ofthe Port Lake Michigan or his designated onscene representative.

(3) The "on-scene representative" of the Captain ofthe Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who hasbeen designated by the Captain ofthe Port to act onhis behalf. The on-scene representative ofthe Captain ofthe Port will be aboard either

a Coast Guard orCoast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain ofthe Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter

oroperate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain ofthe Port Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators givenpermission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain ofthe Port Lake Michigan orhis

on-scene representative.

Dated:May 16, 2007. Bruce C.Jones, Captain,U.S. CoastGuard,Captainof the PortLakeMichigan. [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 of10 Microns or Less
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Finalrule,

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing its findings that the PhoenixPlanning 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 10microns or less (PM-lO) bythe deadline mandated in the Clean AirAct (CAA ortheAct), 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 ofthe 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 2007Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 108 /Wednesday, June 6, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

the tribal areas have failed to attain the 24-hour PM-10NAAQS.

As aresult ofthese 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 andthat achieve 5 percent annual reductions in PM-10 or PM-10 precursor emissions as required by CAA section 189(d). DATES: EffectiveDate:This rule is effective onJuly 6,.2007.

- ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-RO9-OAR-2007-0091 for this action. The index to the docketis available electronically at http:// www.regulations.govand 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 maybe publicly available only at thehard 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, wemean 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. 72FR 13725.

In ourproposed rule we noted that the data on which webased our proposed findings offailure 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, whenless data are. sufficient tounambiguously establish nonattainment, 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 2.3(c) allows EPA
to determine that a monitor is in violation ofthe PM-10 NAAQS. In the

case ofthe Phoenix and Owens Valley nonattainment areas, two years and nine months ofdata were available at the time ofthe proposed rule and clearly indicated that the areas were in violation ofthe 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 havebeen no additional exceedances ofthe PM-1a standard inthe Phoenix and Owens Valley areas.' Therefore, the inclusion ofthese data does not affect EPA's proposed nonattainment findings for .these areas. II. Public Comments andEPA Responses

By letters dated March 15, 2007, EPA invited.the Indian tribes located within the boundaries ofthe 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 offailure to attain. Below is a summary ofthe comments we received and our responses.

Commentsregarding Phoenix:In general, commenters agreed with EPA's proposed nonattainment finding for the Phoenix nonattainment area. Two
commenters wanted EPAto impose sanctions because the area has received attainment date extensions and has still failed to achieve the attainment deadline.

Response:The consequence ofthe Phoenix nonattainrent area's failure to attain the.24-hour PM-10 standard by

ITable 1in theproposed rule ("Phoenix Nonattainment Area PM-la Data Summary 2004- 2006 Sites in Violation ofthe 24-hour PM-la NAAQS') provides details onthe number of observed and estimated exceedances recorded at five monitoring sites in thePhoenix nonattainment

area fromJanuary 2004 through September 2006. 72 FR at 13725. While the attainment statusof 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 inTable 1, Higley (AQS# 04-013-4006), to be inviolation of the NAAQS. As indicated in footnote 2 ofthe proposed rule, EPA hasconcurred with several of Arizona's requests to exclude certain exceednces ofthe 24-hourPM-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, EPAhas also concurred with Arizona's request to exclude twoexceedance days at theHigley monitor (April 14 and 15, 2006) as being dueto natural
events. (March 14, 2007 letter to Nancy C. Wrona, Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality from Sean Hogan, EPA). When these exceedances are excluded, the average annual estimated numberof exceedances at Higley drops from 1.2 per year to 1.0 per year. The standard is attained when the estimated number ofexceedances is less than or equal to one per year. See 40 CFR 50.6(a). However,

even with the-exclusion ofthe Higley data, the Phoenix nonattainment area is still in violation of the 24-hour PM-la NAAQS based on the exceedances listed in Table 1for the other four sites. December 31, 2006 is a finding offailure
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 ofsanctions. However, under CAA section 179(a) and (b), if EPA determines that Arizona fails to submit anew plan by December 31, 2007, or determines that such a plan is incomplete, orifEPA disapproves such

a plan in whole orin part, the Agency
must impose offset or highway sanctions unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18 months.

CommentregardingOwens Valley: EPA received comments on the history ofthe Owens Valley nonattainment area's PM-10 nonattainment problem andthe controls undertaken and committed to by the City ofLos Angeles.

Response:EPA appreciates the information. The Great Basin Unified AirPollution Control District and the City ofLos Angeles will need to continue to work togetherto attainthe PM-l0 standard inthe 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) ofthe Act, serious PM-10nonattainment areas that fail to attain arerequired to submit within 12 months ofthe applicable attainment date, "plan revisions which provide for attainment ofthe 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 ofthe amount of such emissions asreported in the most recent inventory prepared forsuch area."'

In accordance with CAA section 179(d)(3), the attainment deadline applicable to an area that missesthe serious area attainment date is as soon

as practicable, butno later than 5 years from the publication date ofthe nonattainment finding notice. EPA may, however, extend the attainment deadline to the extent it deems appropriate for a period nogreater than 10 years from the publication date, "considering the severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility ofpollution 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 andExecutive 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 reviewby the Office ofManagement 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 ofitself establishes no new requirements, it merely notes that the air quality in the Phoenix nonattainment area and the Owens Valley nonattainment area did notmeet the federal health standard for PM-10by the CAA deadline. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
etseq.). Because this ruledoes not in and ofitself establish new requirements, EPA believes that itis questionable whether arequirement 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) ofthe CAA and is not legally enforceable by a court oflaw, and at most is,a condition forcontinued receipt ofhighway funds. Therefore, it is possible to view an actionrequiring silch a submittal asnot creating any enforceable duty within the meaning of section 421(5)(9a)(I) ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 658(a)(I)). Evenifit did,the duty could be viewed as falling within the exception for the condition ofFederal assistance under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of UMRA (2U.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 ofthe 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 forby Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). EPA contacted each tribe andgave 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 onthe States, onthe relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action does not in and ofitselfcreate any new requirements and does not alterthe relationship or the distribution ofpower 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) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does notimpose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added bythe Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rulemay take effect, the agency promulgating the rulemust submit a rule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to eachHouse ofthe Congress andto the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information tothe U.S. Senate, theU.S. House of'Representatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior topublication ofthe rule'in theFederal Register. A majorrule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. Thisaction is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed inthe United States Court ofAppeals forthe appropriate circuit by August 6, 2007. Filing a petition forreconsideration by the Administrator ofthis finalrule does not affect thefinality ofthisrule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial 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 ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart52

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. JaneDiamond, ActingRegional Administrator, RegionLX. [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 Listingof 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 CityAssembly Plant (Ford)to exclude (or delist) awastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge generated by Ford in Claycomo, Missouri, from the lists ofhazardous wastes. This final ruleresponds to the petition submitted by Ford todelist F019 WWTP sludge generated from the facility's waste water treatment plant.

After careful analysis and use ofthe Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS), EPAhas concluded the petitioned waste is not hazardous vaste. This exclusion applies to 2,000 cubic yards per year ofthe F019WWTP sludge. Accordingly, this final rule excludes the petitioned waste from the requirements ofhazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when itis disposed in a Subtitle D Landfill. DATES: The final rule is effective onJune 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under DocketID 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 notpublicly available, 

### 31185

HeinOnline -- 72 Fed. Reg. 31185 2007