# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 71 Fed. Reg. 78192 2006

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Fri Jul 30 17:47:41 2010

-- 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 Register/Vol. 71, No. 249/ Thursday, December 28, 2006/ Notices

aggregate, to beless protective ofpublic health and welfare than applicable Federal standards.

CARB also demonstrated continuing existence ofcompelling and extraordinary conditions,justifying the state's need for its own motor vehicle pollution control program. Because EPA has not received adverse public
comment challenging the need for CARB's own motor vehicle pollution control program, I cannot deny the waiverbased on a lack ofa compelling and extraordinary conditions.

CARB stated in'its request letters that the amendments do not raise any
concerns ofinadequate leadtime or impose anyinconsistent certification requirements. EPAreceived information during this proceeding that questioned: whether the advance-technology partialzero-emission vehicles (ATPZEVs)

. provisions ofthe ZEV requirements

were ofa typenot consistent with § 202(a), and whether the partial-zeroemission vehicle (PZEV) and fuel-cell vehicle (FCV)provisions ofthe ZEV requirements were not consistent with § 202(a) due to considerations of technological feasibility, lead time, and
cost. EPA finds that the party opposing the within-the-scope confirmation and the waiver offederal preemption has not metits burden ofproofthat the ZEV amendments are inconsistent with § 202(a). I cannot find that CARB's ZEV regulations, as noted, would cause the California motor vehicle emission standards to be inconsistent with § 202(a).

As explained further in the Decision Document, EPA also received comment that CARB's ZEV regulations raise "new issues" whichrequire EPA to consider CARB's within-the-scope request under the criteria for a full waiver offederal preemption. EPA findsthat the party opposing the within-the-scope confirmation has notmet its burden of proofthat the ZEV amendments raise

new issues and therefore I cannot find that the within-the-scope confirmation should be denied onthis basis.

Therefore I confirm that CARB's ZEV amendments as they affect the 2006 and earlier MYs, as noted above, are withinthe-scope ofexisting waivers offederal preemption. Ialso find that the ZEV amendments as they affect the 2006 and earlier MYs meet the criteria for a full waiver and thus I alternatively grant a waiver offederal preemption for these MYs. I also grant a waiver offederal preemption ofCARB's ZEV amendments as they affect the 2007 through 2011 MYs. As explained further inthe Decision Document, EPA is not making any determinations regarding a waiver offederal preemption applicable
to 2012 and later MYs.

CARB did not seek a within-the-scope confirmation ofthe 2007 MY as part of its initial request to EPA. However, CARB later requested EPA to consider the 2007 MY provisions (with the exception of theLDT2 requirement) as within-the-scope. While EPA did request commentregarding CARB's within-the-scope request for the 2003- 2006,MYs, EPAhas not done so forthe 2007 MY. As explained in the Decision Document, EPA does notbelieve that a further official request for comment is needed atthis time. Because the 2007 MY provisions are very similarto the 2005-2006 MY provisions, I confirm that the 2007 MY requirements (with the exception ofthe LDT2 requirement)

are within-the-scope ofprevious waivers offederal preemption. However, any party that wishes to object
to this determination may file such objection as indicated inthe-DATES and ADDRESSES section above. Upon receipt of atimely objection,EPA will consider scheduling a public hearing to reconsider these findings in a subsequent Federal Register Notice.

A full explanation ofEPA's decision, including our review ofcomments received in opposition to CARB's request, is contained in aDecision Document which may be obtained as explained above.

My decision will affect not only
persons in California but also the manufacturers outside the State who
must comply with California's requirements in orderto produce nonroad engines and vehicles for sale in California. For this reason, Ihereby determine and find that this is a final action ofnational applicability.

As with pastwaiver decisions, this action is not arule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget asrequired for rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.

In addition, this action is not arule

as defined inthe Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has
not prepared a supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact ofthis action on small business entities.

Finally, the Administrator has delegated the authority to make determinations regarding waivers under section 209(b) ofthe Actto the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Dated: December 21, 2006. WilliamL.Wehrum, ActingAssistantAdministratorfor Airand Radiation. [FR Doc. E6-22314 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY [EPA-HO-OAR-2006-0340; FRL-8262-6]
Boutique Fuels Listunder Section 1541(b) of the Energy PolicyAct
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) includes a number ofprovisions addressing state boutique fuel programs. Section 1541(b) ofthis Act requires EPA, in consultation with the Department ofEnergy, to determine the total number offuels approved into all state implementation plans (SIPs) as of September 1,2004, under section 211(c)(4)(C) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPAct also requires us to publish a list ofsuch fuels, including the states and Petroleum Administration for Defense District (PADD) inwhich they

are used, forpublic review and
comment. On June 6, 2006, we published a draft list based upon a "fuel type approach" along with an explanation ofour rationale in developing it.We also published an alternative list based upon a "state specific approach." In this notice we are finalizing the list oftotal number of fuels approved into all SIPs as of September 1, 2004, based upon the fuel type approach. This notice also addresses comments that we received

on the proposed draft notice and list. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Pastorkovich, Environmental Protection Agency, MC 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343- 9623; fax number: 202-343-2801; email address: pastorkovich.annemarie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background.

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), state fuel programs respecting afuel characteristic or component that we have regulated under section 211(c) (1)

are preempted.' EPA may waive preemption through approval ofthe fuel program into a State Implementation Plan (SIP). Approval into the SIP

1SeeCAA section 211(c}(4)(A), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(A). 

### 78192

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 78192 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 249/Thursday, December 28, 2006/Notices

requires a demonstration that the state fuel program is necessary to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)that the plan implements.2 "Necessary" means that no other

measures exist that would bring about timely attainment orthat other measures exist and are technically possible to implement, but are unreasonable or impracticable.3 These statefuels programs, which are often referred to as "boutique" fuelprograms because they differ from the federal fuel required in the area, have been adopted by the state to address a specific local air quality issue. One issue presented by boutique fuels is that when events (such as hurricanes or pipeline and refinery breakdowns) lead to fuel supply shortages, varying fuel standards can complicate the process ofquickly solvingthe supply interruption.

The Energy Policy Act of2005 (EPAct)amends the CAA by placing additional restrictions on our authority
to waive preemptionby approving a state fuel intothe SIP. These restrictions

are:

* We cannot approve a state fuel ifit would cause the total number of fuels approved into SIPs to increase above the number approved as ofSeptember 1, 2004.

* In cases where our approval would
notincrease the total number ofsuch fuels, because the total number offuels in SIPs atthat point isbelow the number offuels as ofSeptember 1, 2004, then our approval requires a finding, after consultation with the Department ofEnergy (DOE), that the new fuel will notcause supply or distribution interruptions orhave a significant adverse impact onfuel producibility in the affected or contiguous areas. 4

* Wecannot approve a state fuel into

a SIP unless the fuel is already in an existing SIP within that PADD, with the exception ofa 7.0 psi RVP fuel.5 EPA's approval ofa 7.0 psiRVP fuel would, however,be subject to the other EPAct restrictions.

As these restrictions make clear, how

we determine the total number offuels

on the list may greatly affect states'

2NAAQS are standards forambient levels of
certain air pollutants (e.g.ground-level ozone) and

are designed toprotect public health andwelfare.

3See CAA section 211(cX4)(C)(i), 42U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(i).

4See CAA section 211(v)(4)(C)(v)(lV), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(IV).

5See CAA section 211(c)(4)lc)(v)(V), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(V). For a.pictorial depictionofthe PADD map,please referto "Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts" at http:// www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil-gaslpetroleum/ analysis-publications/oil-market.basics/ paddmap.htm. 

### ability tohave futureboutique fuels
programs approved into SIPs.



### Section 1541(b) ofthe EPAct also requires us, inconsultation with the Department ofEnergy-(DOE),to determine the total number offuels approved into all stateimplementation plans (SIPs)as ofSeptember 1,2004, under section 211(c)(4)(C), andpublish

a listofsuch fuels, including the state andPADD in whichthey are usedfor public review and comment. OnJune 6, 2006, we published a draftlist ofstate fuels approved into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C) as ofSeptember 1,2004 for public review and comment. 6

### The notice included our draft interpretation ofthe various EPActboutique fuels provisions described above. As we discussed inthe notice,the EPAct is ambiguous as tothe meaning of "total number offuels." Weprovided two proposed interpretations for developing the list.The firstproposed approach

was the "fuel type approach." As explained in the notice, this approach wouldtreat each type orkind offuel as
a separate fuel, without respect tothe number of.different state implementation plans that include this fuel type.For example, all state fuels with a Reid VaporPressure of 7.8 poundsper square inch (psi)would be considered as onefuel in determining " thetotal number of fuelsapproved as of September 1,2004. 7 

### While several states had a 7.8 psiRVP program onthat date, they would notbe treated as different fuels in determining the "total number offuels," but as different states using a single fuel type. This approach resulted in a draft list with seven different fuel types. 71 FR 32533.



### We also provided an alternative interpretation, calledthe "state specific approach." Under this approach, each individual state usinga type or kind of fuel in a SIPwould be considered a separate fuel. For example, each state having a 7.8 psi RVP fuel in its SIP could be treated as having a separate fuel for purposes ofdetermining the "total number offuels." The state specific interpretation would lead to as many fuels asthere are state fuel programs in the various PADDs and, as proposed, would haveresulted in 15 different fuels.a 71 FR 32533-34.

6See "Draft Boutique Fuels List Under Section 1541(b) ofthe Energy PolicyAct and Request for Public Comment-Notice." 71 FR 32532, 32533 (June 6, 2006).

7Reid Vapor Pressure is thecommon measure of fuel volatility. Volatility is thetendency offuel to evaporate.

8For a more detailed description ofthe "fuel type approach" and the "state specific approach," see 71 FR 32532, 32533-34. Also see thetables corresponding to these approaches onpages 32535- 36 ofthat notice. A. OurFinal InterpretationoftheEPAct BoutiqueFuelProvisions

In today's notice, we are adopting the fuel type interpretation. We are determining the total number ofstate fuels approved into SIPsunder section 211(c)(4)(C) as ofSeptember 1,2004 based onthe fuel type interpretation. We will use both the fuel type interpretation and the final list offuels in implementing the three EPAct criteria for future decisions on approval ofa state fuel into a SIP. Specifically, these 6riteria present the following restrictions on our ability to approve future state fuels into SIPs:

* We cannot approve a state fuel into

a SIP under section 211(c)(4)(C) if it would causethe total number offuel types on the list to increase above the number approved on September.I, 2004. 9 Under the fueltype interpretation, our approval ofa state 7.8 psi RVP program, for example, would not cause an increase in the number of fuel types onthe list because that type ofRVP program is already on the list. * In cases where our approval ofa fuel would increase the total number of fuels types onthe listbut not above the number approved as ofSeptember 1, 2004, because the total number offuel types inSIPs is below the number of fuelstypes as of September 1, 2004, we
are required to make a finding after consultation with the DOE thatthe fuel does not cause supply ordistribution interruptions orhave a significant adverse impact on fuel producibility in the affected or contiguous areas. Under the fuel type interpretation, where there is "room" on the list,we may approve

a state fuel program, after consultation with the DOE, and a finding that the
state fuel will not cause either supply or distribution interruptions orhave a significant adverse impact on fuel producibility in either the affected or contiguous areas.

* We cannot approve a state fuel into

a SIP unless that fuel type is already in

a SIP inthe applicable PADD, withthe exception ofthe 7.0 psiRVP fuel type.10 Under the fuel type interpretation that

we are adoptingtoday, the PADD restriction would not extend to our approval ofa 7.0 psi RVP fuel, although

our approval ofa 7.0 psiRVP fuel would remain subject to the other EPAct restrictions, discussed above. See also Section I.C. below for a further discussion ofour interpretation and

'See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(l), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(I),

10 SeeCAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(V). 

### 78193

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 78193 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 249/Thursday, December 28, 2006/Notices

implementation ofthe PADD restriction provision in PADD 5.

B. Listof Fuel Types
We have also modified the draft list in response to comments that we received on the proposed notice, and it

now contains a total of8 different fuel types. See Section III, below, forthe final List ofState Fuels approved under section 211(c)(4)(C) as ofSeptember 1, 2004. (i) 9.0 psi RVP Fuel Type

In proposing the draft list ofboutique fuels, we recognized that there were a few states thathad 9.0 psi RVP fuel programs approved into their SIPs as of September 1, 2004. We explained, however, that we do notbelieve that we should include a 9.0 psi RVP fuel type
on the boutique fuels list required by EPAct. We explained that we were obligated to publish a list-based on the total number offuels approved into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C) as 6f September 1,2004, and also required to

remove a fuel that is "identical to a Federal fuel formulation implemented by the Administrator," from the list.11 Because the current federal RVP requirement in all ofthese northeastern states is 9.0 psi RVP, and was as of September 1, 2004, reading the EPAct provisions literally would require EPA to include a 9.0 psi RVP fuel type on the listbut to remove it from the list atthe

sametime. We proposed to exclude the 9.0 psi RVP fueltype from the list in orderto avoid this illogical outcome. As

we further explained in the notice,we do notbelieve that the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type would be viewed as contributing to the proliferation of "fuel islands" that Congress was concerned about.12 We continue to believe that the appropriate way to reconcile these apparently conflicting provisions is to exclude the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type from the list. We do notbelieve that adoption ofthe fuel type interpretation affects our decision notto list the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type.

We received two comments concerning our treatment ofthe 9.0 psi RVP fuel type. Ourresponse to these comments can be found in "Section II. Comment Summary and Response," below. (ii) Arizona Clean Burning Gasoline (CBG)

Under our proposed fueltype interpretation, we listed the total number offuels based onfthe kind or type offuel approved into a SIP as of

"See CAA section 211(c)(41[QC]v)(IU), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v](IlII.

12See 71 FR 32532, 32534. September'1, 2004. 71 FR 32533. We also determined the fuel type or kind based on the required specific fuel components, specifications, or limits-of 

### each fueltype (forexample, 7.8psi RVP, 7.2 psi RVP or 7.0 psiRVP). At proposal therefore, we listed 7.0 psi RVP as a fuel type with Arizona as one ofthe 5 states that uses this fuel type. We also listed 

### Arizona Clean Burning Gasoline (CBG)

as a separate fuel type. We received two comments on our proposal. Both commenters recommended that we list Arizona CBG as two types offuels, namely summertime and wintertime CBG. Both commenters said that specifications for CBG were different in 

### winter, whichwas described asthe period beginning November 2-March 31, and summer, which was described

as the remaining portions ofthe calendar year. Also one commenter stated thatboth summer and winter CBG have different specifications for RVP, sulfur, aromatics, olefins, E200 and E300.

Intoday's notice, we are listing Arizona CBG as two fuel typessummer CBG and non-summer CBG. (See section III below for our final list ofthe fuel types). We agree with the commenters that Arizona's CBG program has several components, specifications or limits for summer CBG, such as the 7.0 psi RVP requirement, that are different from non-summer CBG. We also believe summer CBG requirements, which have been adopted by Arizona to address ozone nonattainment, include the 7.0 psiRVP 

### requirement. We are therefore listing

summer CBG as one fuel type, because 

### ithas specifications that are different from non-summer CBG. We have 

### removed Arizona from the list as one of the states that usesthe 7.0 psi fuel type. We believe that our decision to list CBG

as two fuel types is similarto our listing of the Atlanta 7.0 psi RVP with sulfur provisions as a separate fuel type. At proposal we also specified the control period for Arizona's 7.0 psi RVP program as June 1-September 30. In today's notice, we are specifying May 1- September 30 as the time period for the CBG summer control period, in orderto correspond with the start date of Arizona's summer CBG control period (May 1) and the end date of Arizona's 7.0 psi RVP control period (September 30).

One consequence ofour decision to list Arizona CBG as two fuel types is that states in PADD 5 seeking to adopt state fuel programs would now have a wider choice offuel types forpurposes ofaddressing local air quality problems. (iii)RVP Fuel Types that DoNot Provide a 1.0 psi Waiver for EthanolBlended Gasoline

In our draft list published June 6, 2006, we did notlist any ofthe RVP programs that do not provide a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline as separate fuel types. More specifically,

we proposed listing the 7.8 psi RVP program for western Pennsylvania, and the 7.0 psiRVP program forEl Paso, Texas aspart ofthe 7.8 psi and 7.0 psi fuel types respectively. Both programs explicitly do not provide a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blends, andwe have approved thisrequirement into the respective SIPs.13 Wereceived two comments supporting our proposed decision notto list these fuel programs
as separate fuel types, and one comment inquiring as to why EPA made no mention ofRVP waivers for 10% ethanol-gasoline blends. Ourresponse to these comments can be found in "Section II. Comment Summary and Response," below.

Listing fuel programs as separate fuel types depending on whether they allow

ordo not allow a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline would have several consequences. First, states in the

same PADD as either Pennsylvania and Maine (PADD 1), or Texas (PADD 3), that want to adopt 7.8 psi RVP programs, would notbe able to adopt a 7.8 psi RVP program intheir SIP that allows a 1.0 psi waiver forethanolblended gasoline, because there is no 7.8 psi RVP program approved in any, SIP in eitherPADD 1 or 3 that allows

a 1.0 psi waiver forethanol blends. Conversely, states inPADD 2 that want to adopt a 7.8 psiRVP program would only be able to adopt a 7.8 psi RVP program that allows a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline, because there is no RVP program approved in a SIP in PADD 2 that does not allow a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blends.

Another consequence oflisting separate fuel types forareas that do not allow a 1.0 psi ethanol waiver isthat we would have to decide how to treat the a 7.0 psi RVP fuel type under EPAct. The EPAct treats the 7.0 psi RVP fuel type differently from other fuel typesby allowing EPA to approve a state 7.0 psi RVP fuel even ifno other states in the

samePADD already have a 7.0 psi RVP fuel approved in their SIP (see Section I.C. below). The EPAct does not specify whether future approvals of7.0 psi RVP SIP fuels should be allowed with a 1.0

13 MostSIPs explicitly allow the 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline. However, some SIPs

are silent regarding the 1.0 psi waiver for ethanolblended gasoline, and ourunderstanding is that these SPs donot allow for such a waiver. 

### 78194

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 78194 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 249/Thursday, December 28, 2006/Notices

psi ethanol waiver, without a 1.0 psi ethanol waiver, or whether states should be able to choose whether or notthey
want to allow a 1.0 psi ethanol waiver. 14

We are not listing RVP programs as separate fuel types according to whether

ornot they allow the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver. We believe that listing SIP fuels inthis manner would reduce fuel fungibility andreduce states' flexibility, which are contrary to Congressional intent. As explained above, one consequence ofsuch a listing is that a state in PADD 1that wants to adopt a 7.8 psiRVP program into their SIP could not allow the 1.0 psi ethanol waiverbecause there is no RVP program in a SIP inPADD 1 that allows a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline. We believe that ifa state inPADD 1 adopts

a 7.8 psi fuel program that doesnot allow a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanolblended gasoline, refiners would be required to either notblend ethanol into gasoline in the area covered by the new SIP, or supply a special sub-RVP blendstock which, when blended with ethanol, would meet the 7.8 psiRVP standard. Ifrefiners choose to supply a special blendstock, which meets the 7.8 psiRVP standard when blended with ethanol, the blendstock would have to be produced and transported separately from all other fuels. Webelieve this wouldrun counter to EPAct's intention ofpromoting fuel fungibility.

Additionally, because the exception allowed for 7.0 psiRVP fuel programs makes no mention as to whether new 7.0 psiRVP fuel programs shouldbe permitted with or without the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver, we believe that Congress was primarily concerned with classifying fuel types according to RVP limits, instead ofwhether or not they allowed the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver. We therefore, believe that listing fuel types solely according 'toRVP limits is most consistent with Congress's intent to improve fuel fungibility.

C.Removal of FuelTypesfrom theList
We are required to remove a fuel from the published list offuels ifthe fuel is either identical to a federal fuel or is removed from the SIP into which it is approved.1 5 At proposal we explained

14 It is important to note that this discussion of approval ofstate fuel programs with or without a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blends has no impact on EPA's federal RVP program. In the federal RVP program there is a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanolblends, subject to the provisions for exclusion ofthe 1.0 psi waiver adopted in EPAct. Section 211(h)(4), (5). EPA's interpretation ofthe section 211(c)(4)(C) boutique fuels provisions above has no impact on the federal RVP program adopted under the provisions ofsection 211(h).

15

See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(III), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(IlI). that under the fuel type interpretation,

a fuel type would be removed from the list only ifthat fuel type was either identical to a federal fuel orremoved from all SIPs with that type offuel program. 71 FR 32534. We also proposed howwe would implement the provision relating to removal ofa fuel from the published list.16 71 FR 32535. We received two comments on our proposed implementation ofthis provision to remove a fuel from the published list. Our response to these
comments can be found in "Section II. Comment Summary and Response," below.

Intoday's notice we are adopting the fuel type interpretation, and as proposed we will be removing a fuel from the list ifit is either identical to

a federal fuel or ifit is removed from all SIPs into which it is approved. Our removal ofa fueltype that either ceases to exist in any SIP orthat is identical to afederal fuel formulation may create "room" onthe list, and subsequently; subject to the threerestrictions discussed above, we can approve a "new fuel" type into a SIP.

D.Approvalofa "NewFuel"

The EPAct provides thatbefore approving a "new fuel" into a SIP, where there is room onthe list for additional fuels, we must make a finding, after consultation with the DOE, on the impact ofthe "new fuel"

on fuel supply, distribution, and produc*ibility. We also addressed the EPAct use ofthe term "new fuel", under the fueltype interpretation. 17We explained that the term "new fuel" may be somewhat problematic under the fuel type interpretation. A new fuel type would be a fuel type that is not already

onthe list, however, the PADD restriction would preclude the approval ofa new fuel type ifthat fuel type is not already approved into a SIP inthe applicable PADD. 1 8At proposal, we explained that because there is an exception to the PADD restriction for a 7.0 psi RVP program, we could under limited circumstances give meaning to the term "new fuel" under the proposed fuel type interpretation.' 9 We received

one comment on our proposed implementation ofthis provision for the addition ofa "new fuel" to the

"'See 71 FR32532, 32534.
"See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(IV), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(IV).

18

See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(IV), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(V) and 71 FR 32532, 32534.

laCongress exempted 7.0 psi RVPprograms from thePADD restriction. Whilethe other EPAct provisions onboutique fuels do apply to 7.0 psi RVPprograms, the specific limitation on PADD
usage in section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V) does not apply. Also see 71 FR 32532, 32534. 

### published list. Our responseto this comment canbe found in "Section II. Comment Summary and Response," below.

In today's notice, we are adoptingthe fueltype interpretation, and as proposed, we will give meaning tothe term "new fuel" under the limited circumstances where a state seeksto adopt a 7.0 psi RVP program. At such

atime, we also-expect tomake a finding

onthe impact ofthe "new fuel" on fuel supply,distribution, andproducibility, afterconsultation with theDOE.

We alsobelieve that we could give meaning tothe term "new fuel" where states within PADD 5seek our approval to adopt afuel program thathas been approved intoCalifornia's SIP. See our discussion ofthe PADDrestriction, California Air Resources Board (CARB) fuels, and states inPADD 5in Section I.D.below. Webelieve thatunderthis additional limited circumstance, where states in PADD5 are seeking to adopt CARB fuels approved intoCalifornia's SIP, andthere isroom onthe listfor a
new fuel type,we could give meaning to theterm "new fuel" to include a CARB fuel program, underthe fuel type interpretation that we are adopting today. At such atime, we will alsomake

a finding on the impact ofthe "new fuel" onfuel supply, distribution, and producibility, after consultation with the DOE.
E. ThePADDRestriction

The EPAct constrains our approval of 

### "any fuel unlessthatfuel" was already approved into at least one SIP inthe applicable PADD as ofthe date ofour consideration ofa state's request.2 0 

### At proposal we explained that fora state fuel program to be approved into a SIP in the future, the effect ofthe PADD restriction is that the fuel type must have been approved into a SIP in that PADD as ofthe date ofour consideration ofastate's request (with the exception of 7.0 psiRVP programs).21 We explained inthe notice that the PADD restriction places a strong constraint on our future approval of "boutique fuels" because it effectively limits state fuels to both the types of fuels currently inexistence, and to the PADDs in which they are currently found. 22 We also received several
comments on our treatment ofCARB fuels. Ourresponse to these comments

can be foundbelow in section II.B.

In today's notice we are adopting the fuel type interpretation and finalizing a

20See CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V), 42U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(V).

21See 71 FR 32532, 32534. 22

See 71 FR 3253'2, 32534-32535. 

### 78195

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 78195 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 249/Thursday, December 28, 2006/Notices

list offuel types under this interpretation. Moreover, as proposed,

we can approve a state fuel program if the fuel type (except for 7.0 psi RVP programs) has been approved into a SIP in the applicable PADD as ofthe date of

our consideration of a state's request. Additionally, because we are allowed to approve afuel if it is "approved inat least one [SIP] in the applicable [PADDI," we believe that there is a limited circumstance inPADD 5 where

we could approve a fuel type that is in

a SIP in that PADD although such a fuel type is not on the list that we have published today.23 Our approval would however, be subject to the three restrictions we have listed and discussed earlier. Ifour approval will
not cause an increase inthe number of fuel types above those approved as of September 1, 2004, i.e., ifthere is "room

onthe list," we could approve for states within PADD 5 a fuel program that is in California's SIP, without violating the PADD restriction. CARB fuels are approved into California's SIP, but because the approval is not under CAA section 211(c)(4)(C) we have not placed CARB fuels on the list offuels we are publishing today. Under the PADD restriction provision, however, we are only required to approve a fuel ifit is "approved in atleast one [SIP] in the applicable [PADD]." We would, therefore, notbe prohibited from approving CARB fuels for states within PADD 5, because CARB fuels are approved into a SIP inthe applicable PADD. As earlier explained, adoption and approval ofCARB fuels, however, remains subject to ourmeeting the three restrictions we have listed and discussed, above.

We continue to believe that under the fuel type interpretation, states would generally adopt fuels programs but only in those limited cases where that fuel type is already found intheirPADD. We also continue to believe thatthis interpretation addresses the "fuel islands" concerns, while continuing to preserve an important degree of flexibility and choice ofstates in developing air pollution control
programs.
II.Comment Summary andResponse

We received thirteen sets of comments on the boutique fuels notice. These comments were submitted to the public docket. Our responses to comments are as follows:

23 CAA section 211(c)(4)(c)(vl(V), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(c)(v)(V) A. Comments on theFuelType Approachversusthe StateSpecific Approach.

Comment: The Fuel Type Approach is Preferred. All commenters supported the fuel type approach except one who expressed no opinion. No commenter supported a state-specific approach.

Response: We agree that the fuel type approach is preferable for several

reasons. The fueltype approach will implement the intent ofthe EPAct, while preserving some choice for states in meeting the NAAQS.

B. CommentsRegardingStateFuel ProgramsNotIncludedon theDraft StateBoutiqueFuelsList

Comment: Arizona Clean Burning Gasoline (CBG) should be listed as two separate fuel types. Two commenters suggested that we list Arizona CBG as two fuel types on the list-summer CBG and winter CBG.According to one commenter, this is because the Arizona CBGhas specifications for RVP, sulfur, aromatics, olefins, E200 and E30O during summer that are different from the specifications for winter. The commenter also stated that the summer specifications address the ozone NAAQS, while the winter specifications address the CO NAAQS, and that the differing fuel specifications results in "unique supply and distribution issues." Another commenter stated that

we had failed to "adequately characterize Arizona CBG which is actually two different fuels depending

onthe time ofyear involved."

Response: We agree that Arizona CBG shouldbe listed as two separate fuel types. Arizona requires winter CBG to meet a set ofspecific standards for RVP, sulfur, aromatics, olefins, T50, T90 and oxygen. Arizona, however, allows

summer CBG to eithermeet the same set ofspecific standards (for sulfur, aromatics, olefins, T50, T90 and oxygen), or alternatively meet performance standards for emissions reductions inVOC and NOx. As explained in Section 1.A,above,

summer CBG includes specification for 7.0 psi RVP. Thus, because CBG has components, specifications orlimits for summertime that are different from nonsummertime specifications, we are listing CBG as two fuel types. In today's notice, therefore, we are listing summertime CBG, which includes the 7.0 psi RVPrequirement and nonsummertime CBG. (See Section III, below, for our list ofthe fuels approved into all SIPs as of September 1, 2004). We have also changed the dates inthe table to reflect compliance dates for these two fuel types. We believe that the practical effect ofadding a second fuel type forArizona CBG is small, although

we note that for states inPADD 5 this changes one fuel type (CBG) into two fuel types (summerand non-summer CBG) forconsideration ofapproval to their SIPs forpurposes ofaddressing local air quality issues.

Comment: State RVP programs that do
not provide a 1.0 psi RVP waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline shouldbe listed as separate programs. Two state fuels programs (westernPennsylvania and El Paso, Texas) do not provide a 1.0 psi RVP waiver forethanol-blended gasoline in theirRVP fuel programs. Two commenters stated that these fuel programs should notbe listed as separate fuel types. Also, one commenter stated that EPA mhade no mention ofRVP waivers for 10% ethanol-gasoline blends and,the impact these may have on the list offuel types.

Response: As explained above, we are not listing the 7.8 psi RVP western Pennsylvania program and 7.0 psi RVP El Paso, Texas programs that do not allow the 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blended gasoline as two separate fuel types. As also explained inthe preamble, we believe that listing fuel types according to whether they do or do not allow a 1.0 psi ethanol waiver would run contrary to Congress's intention to improve fuel fungibility through the boutique fuel list.As further explained inthe preamble, because the PADD restriction exception allowed for 7.0 psi RVP fuel programs makes no mention as to whether new 7.0 psi RVP fuel programs should bepermitted with

or without the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver,

we do notbelieve that Congress intended use ofthis criteria for listing fuel types.

Comment: "Historical" 9.0 psiRVP programs should be on the list. In 1989

we setnationwide RVP standards for gasoline sold during the summer, intwo phases. Phase I applied to 1990 and 1991, and Phase II applied to 1992 and later years. Generally, we setthe RVP level at 10.5 psi and 9.0 psi inthe northern states, under Phase I and II, respectively.24 Between 1989 and 1992,

some northeastern states also adopted 9.0 psi RVP programs, which we approved into their SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C). These 9.0 psi RVP programs remain in the SIPs ofseveral northeastern states. Two commenters supported our decision to notinclude these 9.0 psi RVP fuel programs on the list.However, one commenter suggested that we should include these programs

onthe boutique fuels list and that failure to include them would not fulfill

24

See 40CFR 80.27(a)(1) and (2). 

### 78196

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 78196 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 249/Thursday, December 28, 2006/Notices

Congressional intent. This commenter also stated that listing the 9.0 psi.RVP fuel type andthen subsequently removing the 9.0 psiRVP fuel type would provide "room" on the list for the adoption of another state fuel program forthe northeastern states, or

more specifically states in PADD 1.

Response: We do notbelieve that the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type should be included on the list. We proposed not to list the 9.0 psiRVP programs as a way ofreconciling the somewhat conflicting provisions requiring us to list fuels and to remove fuels that were identical to federal fuel programs. At proposal, we explained that we were obligated to publish a list based onthe total number offuels approved into SIPsunder section 211(c)(4)(C) as ofSeptember 1, 2004, and also required to remove a fuel that is "identical to a Federal fuel formulation implemented by the Administrator" from the list. We further explained that reading these provisions literally would require us to simultaneously include 9.0 psiRVP on the list We are publishing today and at the sametime to remove it from the list. We concluded that although several of these 9.0 psiRVP programs remain in the SIPs ofsome northeastern states, Congress would not have intended such

an illogical approach, primarily because the 9.0 psi RVP program could notbe viewed as contributing to the proliferation of 'fuel islands." 25We continue to believe that we should not list 9.0 psiRVP as a fuel type onthe list, and in today's notice we are not including 9.0 psi RVP as a fuel type on the list.

We also do notbelieve that listing and then removing the 9.0 psiRVP fueltype would provide for the adoption ofa new state fuel type for states inPADD 1. As mentioned previously, the PADD restriction strongly constrains our future approval of"boutique fuels" because
states are limited to the types offuels already approved into SIPs intheir PADDs, with the exception ofthe 7.0 psi RVP fuel type. Adding a 9.0 psi RVP fuel type to the list and then removing it would not change this. States in PADD 1 would stillbe limited to adopting a fuel already in a SIPin their
PADD or a 7.0 psi RVP fuel. Therefore,

we have not included 9.0 psi RVP programs inthe boutique fuels list published today.

Comment: CARB fuels shouldbe included onthe Boutique Fuels list. Some commenters indicated that the CARB reformulated gasoline (RFG), and diesel programs shouldbe included on

25 See 71 FR 32534 for a more detailed discussion ofour treatment of9.0 RVP fuel programs. the list. One commenter believed that the list should include CARB RFG and diesel programs, and questioned our decision not to list these programs. Other commenters stated that although CARB RFG and diesel programs have
not been approved into a SIP under section 211(c)(4)(C), they should be included on the list because they present the same logistical issues as boutique fuel programs. Another
commenter urged us to inform Congress ofour lack ofauthority to address CARB RFG and diesel programs under section 211(c)(4)(C) ifwe believed we lacked such authority.

Response: CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(II) requires us to determine and publish the "total number offuels" approved into all SIPs, under section 211(c)(4) as ofSeptember 1,2004. We believe this provision specifically refers to state fuels programs "approved" into SIPs under' section 211(c)(4)(C). With such specific language, we do notbelieve that Congress intended us to include CARB fuel programs that are approved into a SIP under section1i1, based upon the "allowance" from preemption provided under section 211(c)(4)(B), instead of "approved" under section 211(c)(4)(C). We also note thatunder limited circumstances, such as when there is

room on the list, adoption by a state in PADD5 of CARB RFG ordiesel fuels programs would not violate the PADD .restriction. See our discussion in Section 1.D, above. Such adoption and approval, however, would remain subject to the other restrictions on our authority to approve state fuels.

Comment: State Oxygenated fuels *should be included on the Boutique Fuels list Some commenters indicated that Congress intended that EPA should include state oxygenated fuelsprograms
on the boutique fuels list, even though they acknowledged that these programs

are not approved into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C). Similarly, a commenter noted that Nevada's oxygenated fuels program contains an ethanol mandate that should be included on the list.This commenter also noted that theNevada program includes a 9.0 psi RVP cap in winter.

Response: Section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(II) requires usto determine the total number offuels we have approved into all SIPs, under section 211(c)(4)(C), as of September 1,2004 and publish alist of such fuels. We believe this provision specifically refers to state fuels programs "approved" into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C). With such specific language, we do not believe that Congress intended us to include oxygenated fuels programs that were not approved into SIPsunder section 211(c)(4)(C), but, rather, were approved under sections 110 and 211(m). Since the Nevada ethanol requirement is part ofan oxygenated fuels program that we approved under sections 110 and 211(m), we do notbelieve it should be ihcluded on the boutique fuels listwe
are adopting today. Also, since there are

no federal wintertime RVP controls, the Nevada wintertime RVP cap is not preempted and is not approved into the SIP under section 211(c)(4)(C), and we do not believe it should be included on theboutique fuels list we are adopting today.

Comment: State biofuel mandates should be included on the Boutique Fuels list. Some commenters stated that the list should include fuels required by
state biofuel mandates.

Response: Section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(II) requires us to determine the total number offuels we have approved into all SIPs, under section 211(c)(4)(C); as of September 1, 2004.We believe this provision is very specific inreferring to state fuels programs "approved" into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C). Since the ethanol andbiofuel mandates (includingbiodiesel) that the
commenters reference were not approved into aSIP under section 211(c)(4)(C) as ofSeptember 1,2004, they should notbe placed on the list.

C.Addition andRemoval ofaFuelType From theList

Comment: Two commenters noted that beginning in 2007 there should be

an opportunity to consolidate the boutique fuel list by eliminating the unique gasoline sulfur requirements for Atlanta, Georgia. According to the commenters, beginning in 2007 early sulfur credits under the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program will have been exhausted and Atlanta and other parts ofthe country would be receiving the

same gasoline withregard to sulfur
content. The Atlanta program would simply be listed as one ofthe states using the 7.0 psi RVP fuel type.

Response: As discussed above, we must remove a fuel from the list when the fueltype is "identical to a Federal fuel formulation implemented by the Administrator.' '26 Considering removal ofthe Atlanta program from the list, at this stage, however, would be premature.

Comment: One commenter recommended thatEPA clarify the procedure for adding a fuel to the list. The commenter inquired as to whether EPA would approve either a new fuel

26See CAA section 211(c)(4)(c(v)(fIl), 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C (v}(I) 

### 78197

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 78197 2006

### Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 249/Thursday, December 28, 2006/Notices

only foruse inPADD 1 or onethat could beused in any other PADD subsequent to removal ofa fueltype such as the "summer 7.0 psi RVP gasoline with sulfur provisions," which the commenter noted is currently in use only in PADD 1.The commenter also inquired as to whether a state inPADD 3 could substitute "summer 7.0 psiRVP gasoline with sulfur provisions" fuel type with another new fuel type. The commenter further inquired as to whether such a substitution would violate the PADD restriction in section 211(c)(4)(G)(v)(V).

Response: In sections I.B. and C. of the preamble, we discussed how we may remove a fuel type from the list, and approve a "new fuel" into a SIP under EPAct. In section I.D. ofthe preamble we also discussed how the PADD restriction in section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(V) places a strong constraint on our future approval of "boutique fuels" by effectively limiting state fuels toboth the types offuels currently in existence, and to the PADDs inwhich they are currently found, with the exception of 7.0 psi RVP fuel type. We expect that ifthe "summer 7.0 psi RVP gasoline with sulfur provisions" fueltype in PADD 1 is removed from the list,the only fuels types we may approve into a SIP in PADD 3 would be fuel types that are approved into SIPs inPADD 3 as ofthe date of ourconsideration ofa state's request to approve a fueltype.
D.ConsultationwithDOE

Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's consultations with DOE should be part ofthe public record.

Response: We agree withthis
comment. We did consult with DOE Staff aspart ofthe development ofthe June 6, 2006 notice and the draft boutique fuels list it announced. We have docketed DOE's concurrence with the approach proposed. We have also consulted withDOE staffon developing today's notice and the list it adopts and

we have docketed DOE's concurrence with this final notice.

E. GeneralComments

Comment: EPA should explain how the list will be affected by arequest from a state governor not to allow the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver aspermitted by section 211(h)(5) ofEPAct. Response: As mentioned earlier in the preamble, our approval ofstate fuel programs with or without a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blended gasoline does not have any impact on federal RVP programs, which are authorized by section 211(h). For areas covered by federal RVP programs, section 211(h)(4) ofthe Clean AirAct allows a 1.0 psi RVP waiver for gasoline blends containing 10% ethanol. Section 211(h)(5) also permits the governor ofa state to petition EPA to remove the 1.0 psi RVP waiver ifthe state provides documentation that the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver increases emissions. The EPA's interpretation ofsection 211(c)(4)(C) above, has no impact on such federal RVP programs.

Comment: EPA should provide a more nuanced analysis offuel categories that considers how fuel properties fall into a hierarchy ofsubstitutability that affects supply flexibility, both from a perspective ofvehicle impacts as well as legal constraints. For example, a state requiring gasoline with a 7.8 RVP limit also can legally allow gasoline with a 7.2 or 7.0 RVP limit.

Response: Fuels that meet more stringent standards than those required by a SIPmay be supplied as compliant fuel inany SIP covered area. Evaluating SIP fuels from a perspective ofvehicle impacts is.outside the scope oftoday's Notice.

Comment: EPA approval ofstate fuels should include supply impacts of all unique fuels, such as California fuels,
state winter oxygenate fuels, statemandated biofuels, federal RFG, and federal RVP-controlled fuels. Several commenters recommended that, when reviewing the supply impacts ofa proposed SIP fuel, EPA consider all unique fuels, such as California fuels, state winter oxygenate fuels, statemandated biofuels, federal RFG, and federal RVP-controlled fuels, even if these fuels are noton the boutique fuel list that we are publishing in today's notice. Commenters also urged EPA to include these unique fuel requirements inthe § 1509 Fuel Harmonization Study that EPA and DOE are currently preparing for Congress.

Response: As explained above, before approving a "new fuel" into a SIP, where there is "room" onthe list, EPA is required to make a finding, after consultation with theDOE, on the impact of the "new fuel" on fuel supply, distribution, and producibility. In reviewing the supply implications ofa "new fuel," EPA agrees that it is reasonable to consider all fuels inthe

area although such fuels are not onthe boutique fuels list. The supply implications ofa "new fuel" canbest be understood by evaluating them in the
context ofthe other fuel requirements applicable to fuel distributed inthat

area. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to consider "unlisted" fuels such asbiofuels or oxygenated gasoline when determining whether ornot a "new fuel" willpresent supply or distribution interruptions orwill have a significant adverse impact on fuel producibility in the affected or contiguous areas. We also recognize that including these "unlisted" fuels inthe EPAct section1509 fuel harmonization study is appropriate.

Comment: One commenter said that EPA should allow more time for states to demonstrate attainment with the 8 hour ozone NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS. Allowing states more time will enable them to realize the benefits of federal fuels programs that have not yet been fully implemented (low sulfur gasoline and ultra-low sulfur diesel), and lessen the pressure on individual
states to add motor fuel controls to their SIPs to demonstrate attainment.

Response: Determining timelines for
states to demonstrate attainment with the various NAAQS is outside the scope oftoday's Notice.

IH. Publication ofthe Boutique Fuel List

A list ofthe eight (8) fuel types approved into SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C) as ofSeptember 1, 2004, the states, and the PADD they are used in is set forth inthe following Table. Please note that this table varies from the draft table for the fuel type interpretation published inthe June 6, 2006 notice, which contained seven fuel types. Specifically, we have divided the Arizona CBG program into summer and

non-summer. The Arizona summer CBG program includes the 7.0 psi RVP requirement that appeared on the draft table, but covers all the CBG requirements applicable between May 1 and September 30.

TOTAL NUMBER OF FUELS APPROVED INSTATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIPS) UNDER 

### CAA SECTION 211 

### (c)(4)(C) AS OF SEPTEMBER 

### 1, 2004
Type of fuel control PADD

- Region-state

RVP of 7.8 psi 1

....................................................... 1 1-ME (May 1-Sept.15)* 1 3-PA 

### 78198

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 78198 2006

### Federal Register

### /Vol. 71, No. 249/Thursday, December 28, 2006

### /Notices

TOTAL NUMBER OF FUELS APPROVED IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIPS) UNDER CAA SECTION 

### 211 (c)(4)(C) AS

OF SEPTEMBER 1, 

### 2004-Continued

Type of fuel control PADD Region-state

2 5-IN 2 5-MI 3 6-TX (May 1-Oct. 1)* RVP of 7.2 psi

........................................................... 2 5-IL RVP of 7.0 psi

........................................................... 2 7-KS 2 7-MO 3 4-AL 3 6-TX RVP of 7.0 with gasoline sulfur provisions

............... 1 4-GA Low Emission Diesel

................................................. 3 6-TX Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Summer)

........................ 5 9-AZ (May 1-Sept 30) Cleaner Burning Gasoline (non-Summer)

.............. 5 9-AZ (Oct 1-Apr 30) Winter Gasoline (aromatics &sulfur)

..................... 5 9-NV

* Dates listed in parentheses refer to summer gasoline programs with different RVP control periods from the federal RVP control period, which
runs from June 1through September 15.

Dated: December 21, 2006. Stephen L.Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-22313 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY
[ FRL-8263-7]
Request for Member Nominees tothe Proposed Adaptation for ClimateSensitive Ecosystems and Resources AdvisoryCommittee (ACSERAC)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; Request for nominations
to the proposed Adaptation forClimateSensitive Ecosystems and Resources Advisory Committee (ACSERAC)..

SUMMARY: As required by section 9(a)(2) ofthe Federal Advisory Committee Act,

we are giving notice that EPA is inviting nominations for membership onthe proposed Adaptation for ClimateSensitive Ecosystems and Resources Advisory Committee (ACSERAC). The purpose ofthis proposed Committee is
to provide advice onthe conduct ofa study titled, "Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for ClimateSensitive Ecosystems and Resources," to be conducted as part ofthe U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).This
assessment is part of acomprehensive
set ofassessments identified bythe CCSP's Strategic Plan forthe Climate Change Science Program. The proposed ACSERAC will advise on the specific issuesthat shouldbe addressed in the assessment, appropriate technical approaches, the type and usefulness of information to decision makers, the
content ofthe final assessment report, compliance with the Information Quality Act, and other matters important to the successful achievement ofthe objectives ofthe study. EPA has determined that thisproposed federal advisory committee is in the public interest and will assist the Agency in performing its duties under the Clean Water Act, Clean AirAct, and the Global Climate Protection Act. The draft prospectus for the study is on the CCSP Web site at http:// www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/ sap4-4/sap4-4prospectus-final.htm.

Proposed committee membership will total approximately ten (10) persons, who will serve as Special Government Employees or Regular Government Employees. The membership ofthe proposed committee will include a balanced representation ofinterested persons with professional and personal qualifications and experience to contribute to the functions ofthe proposed committee. In selecting members EPA will consider individuals from the Federal Government, State and/or local governments, Tribes, the scientific community, non- . governmental organizations and the private sector with expertise, experience, knowledge and interests essential to, or affected by, the successful completion ofthe study. Any interbsted person ororganization may submit anomination. Nominations should be identified by name, occupation, organization, position, address, and telephone number, and
must include a complete resume ofthe nominee's background, experience and expertise, and any other information considered relevant. Additional avenues and resources will be utilized by EPAin the solicitation ofnominees. Copies of the Committee Charter willbe filed with the appropriate congressional committees and the Library ofCongress. DATES: Nominations should be received by January 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submitnominations to Joanna Foellmer (8601D), National Center forEnvironmental Assessment, Immediate Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; Telephone: (202) 564-3208; e-mail address: Foellmer.joanna@epa.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanna Foellmer (8601D), National Center forEnvironmental Assessment, Immediate Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; Telephone:

(202) 564-3208; e-mail address: Foellmer.joanna@epa.gov. The Agency will not formally acknowledge or respond to suggestions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose ofthe proposed committee is to provide advice on the conduct ofthe study titled, "Pteliminary Review of Adaptation Options for ClimateSensitive Ecosystems and Resources," to be conducted as part ofthe U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). This study will focus on adaptation to anticipated impacts ofclimate change

on federally owned and managed lands and waters. Within the context ofthe assessment's prospectus, the proposed ACSERAC will advise on the specific issues to be addressed, appropriate technical approaches, the type and usefulness ofinformation to decision makers, the content ofthe final
assessment report, compliance with the Information Quality Act, and other
matters important to the successful achievement ofthe objectives ofthe study. Individuals and organizations interested in submitting nominations for membership should familiarize themselves with the final prospectus for 

### 78199

HeinOnline -- 71 Fed. Reg. 78199 2006