Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 26653 

1 ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 at 13568 

(April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). 

2 Id. at 13502. 

3 70 FR 75914 (December 21, 2005). 

4EPA made three determinations to support the 

enforcement exemption: (1) That emission 

reductions from CaRFG3 would be equal to or 

greater than the emission reductions from Federal 

Phase II RFG standards; (2) that the content 

standard for benzene in CaRFG3 would be 

equivalent in practice to the Federal Phase II RFG 

standard and that the oxygen content standard of 

Continued 

Dated: April 28, 2010. 

L. Barndt, 

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

Port, Sector Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11265 Filed 5–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0344; FRL–9112–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Reformulated Gasoline and Diesel 

Fuels; California 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule approves state 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of California on 

June 15, 2004 and February 3, 2009, 

relating to reformulated gasoline (RFG) 

and diesel fuel sold or supplied as 

motor vehicle fuels in California. The 

revisions relating to RFG include 

California Phase 3 RFG (CaRFG3) 

regulations, correction of errors and 

streamlined requirements for 

compliance with and enforcement of the 

CaRFG3 standards, and an update to the 

State’s predictive model to mitigate 

permeation emissions associated with 

the use of ethanol as a fuel additive. The 

revisions relating to diesel fuel include 

test methods for determining the 

aromatic hydrocarbon content in diesel 

fuel and reductions in the maximum 

allowable sulfur content for motor 

vehicle diesel fuel. The effect of today’s 

action is to make these revisions 

federally enforceable as part of the 

California SIP. 

DATES: This final rule is effective June 

11, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under EPA–R09– 

OAR–2009–0344. The index to the 

docket for this action is available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

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

some may not be publicly available in 

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

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information the 

disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4152, buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Summary of Proposed Actions 

On July 10, 2009 (74 FR 33196), EPA 

proposed to approve revisions to the 

California regulations for reformulated 

gasoline (RFG) sold or supplied in 

California, as submitted on June 15, 

2004 and February 3, 2009, and 

revisions to the regulations for diesel 

fuel sold or supplied in California, as 

submitted on February 3, 2009, as 

revisions to the California SIP. On July 

21, 2009 (74 FR 35838), EPA issued a 

correction to the proposed approval and 

on August 11, 2009 (74 FR 40123), EPA 

extended the comment period on the 

proposed approval to August 31, 2009. 

For a detailed discussion of the rule 

revisions that California submitted, 

please refer to EPA’s proposed rule and 

Technical Support Document which can 

be found in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

We received one comment letter on 

August 31, 2009 from the Center on 

Race, Poverty & the Environment (CRPE 

or ‘‘the commenter’’) on behalf of the 

Association of Irritated Residents, 

Comite ́ West Goshen, Comite ́ Unido de 

Plainview, Comite ́ Residentes 

Organizados al Servicio del Ambiente, 

Committee for a Better Arvin, La Nueva 

Esperanza deAlpaugh, El Quinto Sol de 

America, South Shafter Project 

Committee, Shafter Chapter League of 

United Latin American Citizens, United 

for a Change in Tooleville, and La Voz 

de Tonyville. 

We have summarized the comments 

and provided responses below. 

Comment 1: CRPE stated that EPA 

must determine that CaRFG3 is 

enforceable before approving the SIP 

revision. Specifically, the commenter 

asserted that EPA is inappropriately 

relying on a federal RFG enforcement 

exemption granted in 2005 to support 

its conclusion that the CaRFG3 

amendments to the SIP satisfy the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a). 

The commenter summarized portions 

of the rationale EPA provided in our 

proposed approval (74 FR 33198), and 

stated that ‘‘EPA must evaluate the final 

rule to determine whether the rule is 

enforceable under § 110(a), not whether 

the rule is equivalent in practice to 

federal requirements.’’ The commenter 

asserted that EPA has neither ‘‘made the 

requisite finding that the provisions are 

enforceable,’’ nor ‘‘made the case that 

equivalence in practice to federal 

requirements constitutes enforceability 

for the purposes of § 110(a).’’ 

Response 1: Section 110(a)(2)(A) of 

the CAA requires that each SIP include 

‘‘enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques * * * as may be necessary 

or appropriate to meet the applicable 

requirements of this chapter.’’ See also 

CAA section 172(c)(6) (requiring 

enforceable measures in nonattainment 

area plans). EPA has stated in 

interpretive guidance that to be 

enforceable in practice, a measure must 

‘‘specify clear, unambiguous, and 

measurable requirements’’ and must 

include a legal means to ensure that 

sources are in compliance.1 For 

example, an enforceable SIP regulation 

must clearly spell out the requirements, 

the regulated sources or activities, the 

recordkeeping and monitoring 

requirements, and test procedures to 

determine whether sources are in 

compliance.2 We continue to believe 

that the revisions to the California RFG 

regulations that we are approving today 

satisfy these enforceability requirements 

of CAA section 110(a). 

First, as the commenter notes, in 2005 

EPA exempted refiners, blenders and 

importers of CaRFG3 sold for use within 

California from certain enforcement 

provisions in the Federal RFG 

regulations found at 40 CFR 80.81 

(CaRFG3 enforcement exemption).3 EPA 

granted this enforcement exemption 

following a determination that the 

CaRFG3 regulations and associated 

enforcement mechanisms were 

sufficient to ensure that producers of 

California gasoline would in fact meet 

the CaRFG3 standards, which in turn, 

would ensure compliance with the 

Federal Phase II RFG standards.4 EPA’s 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

26654 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2.0 weight percent would be met in Federal RFG 

areas; and (3) that the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) compliance and enforcement 

program is sufficiently rigorous to ensure that 

Federal Phase II RFG requirements would be met 

in practice. 74 FR 33196 at 33198 (July 10, 2009); 

70 FR 75914 at 75918 (December 21, 2005). See also 

69 FR 48827 at 48832 (August 11, 2004). 

5 69 FR 48827 at 48829 (August 11, 2004) 

(proposed rule to extend California enforcement 

exemptions to CaRFG3). EPA had previously 

exempted gasoline subject to California’s Phase 2 

RFG regulations (CaRFG2) from certain enforcement 

requirements under the Federal Phase I RFG 

program. See 59 FR 7813 (February 16, 1994); 63 

FR 34818 (June 26, 1998). These enforcement 

exemptions expired on December 31, 1999, but EPA 

continued the exemptions beyond that date 

following a determination that the CaRFG2 

regulations would provide emission benefits 

equivalent to the Federal Phase II RFG program. 64 

FR 49992 (September 15, 1999). The 2005 action 

extended these California enforcement exemptions 

to CaRFG3. 

6 58 FR 11745 at 11749 (February 26, 1993). 

7 58 FR 11745 at 11746, 11749 (February 26, 

1993). 

8 69 FR 48827 at 48832 (August 11, 2004); 70 FR 

75914 at 75918 (December 21, 2005). Note that the 

CaRFG3 enforcement exemptions do not excuse 

producers of California gasoline from Federal RFG 

standards, but rather exempt them only from certain 

enforcement requirements designed to demonstrate 

compliance with the Federal RFG standards. EPA 

retains its authority to sample and test California 

gasoline to make sure that it meets all applicable 

Federal standards. 58 FR at 11746 (February 26, 

1993); 69 FR 48827 at 48832 (August 11, 2004). 

9 74 FR at 33198 (July 10, 2009). We also 

reviewed CARB’s most recent annual enforcement 

report, which indicates that fuels inspection and 

enforcement cases have slightly increased in recent 

years. Id. at fn. 12. 

10The California ‘‘Predictive Model Procedures’’ 

are used to determine whether the emissions of a 

gasoline meeting alternative specifications will be 

equivalent to the emissions of a gasoline that meets 

CaRFG3 specifications. CARB most recently 

amended the Predictive Model Procedures on 

August 7, 2008. See ‘‘California Procedures for 

Evaluating Alternative Specifications for Phase 3 

Reformulated Gasoline Using the California 

Predictive Model,’’ CARB, Amended August 7, 

2008, at pg. 4; 13 CCR section 2265. 

11See ‘‘Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, 

Proposed Amendments to California Phase 3 

Gasoline Regulations,’’ CARB, Stationary Source 

Division, April 27, 2007 (CARB Staff Report), at pp. 

15–20. 

12 13 CCR section 2265. 

13The declining sulfur content cap and associated 

compliance requirements are described more 

specifically in section 2261(b)(1)(A). 

14A ‘‘cap limit’’ is ‘‘a limit that applies to all 

California gasoline throughout the gasoline 

distribution system, in accordance with 13 CCR 

sections 2262.3(a), 2262.4(a), and 2262.5(a) and (b).’’ 

California Procedures for Evaluating Alternative 

Specifications for Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline 

Using the California Predictive Model, last amended 

April 25, 2008, at pg. 8 (definitions). 

15See CARB Staff Report, Executive Summary, at 

pg. ix. 

16According to CARB, sulfur levels in CaRFG3 

currently average about 10 ppmw, with 95 percent 

of production being below 18 ppmw. See ‘‘Final 

Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking Including 

Summary of Comments and Agency Responses,’’ 

CARB, June 14, 2007 (CARB FSOR) at pg. 17. 

17See ‘‘Updated Information Digest: 2007 

Amendments to the Phase 3 California 

Reformulated Gasoline Regulations,’’ CARB 

[undated]; see also CARB Staff Report, at pp. ix, 35. 

18See ‘‘Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, 

Public Hearing to Consider Amending the Test 

Methods Designated for Determining Olefin Content 

and Distillation Temperatures of Gasoline,’’ CARB, 

September 29, 2000, at pg. 2. 

19 Id. at 4. 

rationale for the exemption was 

consistent with the analyses we used 

when we previously granted 

enforcement exemptions to refiners, 

importers, and blenders of California 

Phase 2 gasoline (CaRFG2) under both 

the Federal Phase I and Phase II RFG 

programs.5

Specifically, EPA determined in those 

prior actions that it was appropriate to 

exempt producers of California gasoline 

from certain sampling and testing, 

recordkeeping, and reporting provisions 

in the Federal RFG regulations that deal 

solely with demonstrating compliance 

with the Federal RFG standards.6 EPA 

found that these Federal enforcement 

provisions were duplicative and 

unnecessary, because the California RFG 

program was sufficiently stringent and 

enforceable to ensure compliance with 

the Federal standards.7 Thus, following 

a determination that the CaRFG3 

regulations would provide emission 

benefits equivalent to the Federal Phase 

II RFG program, EPA extended the 

enforcement exemptions at 40 CFR 

80.81 to refiners, importers, and 

blenders of CaRFG3.8

As noted in our proposal for this 

action, CARB’s compliance and 

enforcement program has not changed 

significantly since we made our 2005 

finding regarding its adequacy.9 Thus, 

we believe that the analyses underlying 

the CaRFG3 enforcement exemption 

support our conclusion that the CaRFG3 

regulations are enforceable, consistent 

with the requirements of CAA section 

110(a). 

Moreover, many of the regulatory 

revisions that we are approving today 

improve the enforceability of 

California’s RFG program. For example, 

CARB amended the Predictive Model 

Procedures 10 to, among other things, 

update the motor vehicle emissions 

inventory vehicle mix, update the 

reactivity adjustment factors, and add 

new motor vehicle exhaust emissions 

test data.11 These revised modeling 

procedures, which become effective 

December 31, 2009,12 improve the 

reliability of emission predictions for 

alternative gasoline specifications 

subject to CaRFG3 standards. 

Additionally, the CaRFG3 standards 

in 13 CCR section 2262 lower the sulfur 

content cap limit from 30 parts per 

million (ppm) to 20 ppm starting 

December 31, 2011.13 Cap limits 14

provide an upper limit for fuel 

properties for all compliance options 

and allow for enforcement of the 

requirements throughout the gasoline 

distribution system.15 According to 

CARB’s staff report for the 2007 

revisions to the CaRFG3 program (CARB 

Staff Report), refiners will generally not 

be able to produce complying gasoline 

with sulfur limits higher than 20 ppm— 

that is, any gasoline found as having a 

sulfur content of greater than 20 ppm 

will most likely be non-complying 

gasoline.16 The sulfur content cap limit 

of 20 ppm enables CARB to enforce 

against producers or importers of any 

gasoline exceeding this level of sulfur, 

which will cover most non-complying 

gasoline formulations.17

Finally, several test method 

requirements have been updated. For 

example, the new test method for 

measuring olefins in fuel using 

supercritical fluid chromatography 

(SFC) is significantly more precise than 

the previous method, which was based 

on manual measurements of olefin 

content in fuel.18 The new test method 

for measuring the distillation 

temperature of RFG adopts the updated 

American Society of Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) standard, which 

corrects errors in the test method’s 

precision statements and requires a 

temperature sensor centering device. 

These updates improve the accuracy of 

the temperature readings.19

In sum, we believe that the analyses 

underlying the CaRFG3 enforcement 

exemption and our review of updates to 

the compliance provisions and test 

methods in the CaRFG3 program 

demonstrate that the CaRFG3 

regulations are practically enforceable, 

consistent with the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a). 

Comment 2: The commenter asserted 

that CaRFG3 is not enforceable because 

the Predictive Model is neither in the 

SIP nor part of this SIP revision. 

Specifically, the commenter asserted 

that ‘‘CARB produced the CaRFG3 

Predictive Model as a way to predict 

whether various RFG compositions, or 

recipes, will result in acceptable 

emissions when used in motor 

vehicles,’’ and that ‘‘[t]he CaRFG3 

program and resulting emission 

reductions depend entirely on the 

Predictive Model.’’ The commenter 

stated that in order for CaRFG3 to be 

enforceable, its requirements must be 

clearly spelled out, and that these 

requirements are contained within the 

Predictive Model. The commenter also 

asserted that in order for the CaRFG3 

emissions reductions to be creditable to 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 26655 

20See 13 CCR sections 2260(a)(8.5), 2260(a)(19.7), 

and 2265(a)(2). 

21 13 CCR section 2265(a)(2). 

22We note also that California Health & Safety 

Code § 43013.1 requires that the CaRFG3 

regulations preserve the emissions and air quality 

benefits of the CaRFG2 program. 

23The updates to the Predictive Model 

Procedures, which become effective December 31, 

2009, were the most significant of the recent 

revisions to the CaRFG3 program. 13 CCR section 

2265; CARB Staff Report at 1. See also fn. 10, supra. 

24A producer or importer may elect to blend 

higher volumes of ethanol into CARBOB under 

section 2261(b)(7) only if the producer or importer 

satisfies numerous notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements to ensure that all emission 

reduction requirements are met. 13 CCR section 

2261(b)(7); see also CARB FSOR at pg. 4. 

25See 13 CCR section 2261(b)(7)(B)(1); CARB 

FSOR at pg. 4. 

26We note also that the SIP-approved California 

RFG regulations do not regulate the composition of 

denatured ethanol that can be blended with 

CARBOB to produce CaRFG. See 13 CCR §§ 2260– 

2262.1 (adopted September 18, 1992); 60 FR 43383 

(August 21, 1995). Use of denatured ethanol as an 

oxygenate in California gasoline became more 

widespread following California’s prohibition of 

MTBE in California gasoline starting December 31, 

2003. 13 CCR section 2262.6. 

27 13 CCR sections 2261(b)(7)(A), 2265. 

28A denaturant is added to ethanol to ensure that 

it cannot be ingested, and to allow for ethanol to 

be transported and handled as an industrial fluid 

Continued 

attainment or Reasonable Further 

Progress (RFP) demonstrations, the 

Predictive Model must be included in 

the SIP. 

Finally, the commenter asserted that 

this argument is ‘‘not merely a symbolic 

procedural argument’’ and that SIP 

approval of the Predictive Model 

‘‘ensures that CARB does not change the 

model, perhaps unwittingly or even 

underhandedly weakening it, without 

first subjecting any such change to EPA 

scrutiny under § 110(l).’’ The commenter 

reiterated its assertion that EPA has not 

made the necessary determination that 

the submitted SIP revisions are 

enforceable. 

Response 2: We are approving the 

Predictive Model Procedures into the 

California SIP as part of this action. 

CARB initially submitted the Predictive 

Model Procedures to EPA on June 15, 

2004, and submitted revisions on 

February 3, 2009. The Predictive Model 

Procedures are incorporated by 

reference into the CaRFG3 regulations,20

which require that producers or 

importers of gasoline comply with the 

Predictive Model Procedures in 

evaluating whether gasoline meeting 

alternative specifications in lieu of 

CaRFG3 specifications will achieve 

equivalent emission reductions.21See 

also Response 1 and footnote 10, above 

(describing CARB’s updates to the 

Predictive Model Procedures). We 

believe that our approval of the 

Predictive Model Procedures into the 

SIP addresses the commenter’s concerns 

about the enforceability of the CaRFG3 

program, in addition to the crediting of 

CaRFG3 emissions reductions to 

attainment or Reasonable Further 

Progress (RFP) demonstrations. 

Comment 3: The commenter stated 

that EPA had failed to adequately 

evaluate whether the proposed SIP 

revisions satisfy the requirements of 

CAA section 110(l). Specifically, the 

commenter asserted that EPA’s analysis 

did not adequately support the Agency’s 

conclusion that the proposed revisions 

do not interfere with applicable 

requirements concerning attainment and 

RFP, or other applicable requirements. 

The commenter asserted that EPA’s 

proposal contained ‘‘the same 

conclusory statement for both the 

CaRFG3 and diesel fuel rules that, 

‘because the submitted SIP revisions 

strengthen the requirements of the 

approved SIP, EPA has determined that 

approval of these regulations is 

consistent with CAA section 110(l).’ 74 

FR 33198–33199.’’ The commenter 

noted that EPA had provided more 

detailed analyses in its Technical 

Support Document (TSD) but stated that 

in several cases, EPA had not provided 

the requisite section 110(l) analysis. 

For example, the commenter stated, 

EPA’s proposed approval of section 

2261(b)(7) of title 13, California Code of 

Regulations (CCR) was not addressed in 

EPA’s TSD or supported by an adequate 

section 110(l) analysis. The commenter 

stated that ‘‘EPA proposes to approve 

§ 2261(b)(4), (5), and (6) because they do 

not affect emission reductions, but does 

not provide the same conclusion for 

§ 2261(b)(7).’’ 

As a second example, the commenter 

stated that EPA’s TSD did not address 

the increase of the maximum denaturant 

content from 4.76% to 5.00% as set 

forth in 13 CCR section 2262.9. The 

commenter stated that EPA had 

identified changes to this provision as 

‘‘non-substantive clarifying changes,’’ 

but that increasing the allowable 

denaturant content is a ‘‘substantive 

non-clarifying change.’’ The commenter 

asserted that EPA’s failure to consider 

the potential interference of these 

changes with applicable requirements is 

arbitrary and capricious. 

Response 3: Section 110(l) of the CAA 

states that EPA ‘‘shall not approve a 

revision of a [SIP] if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress * * * or any 

other applicable requirement of [the 

Act].’’ 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). As explained in 

the TSD for our proposal, most of the 

CaRFG3 program revisions are either 

improvements or minor clarifications 

that will not affect emissions. To the 

extent that some substantive changes 

may result in increased emissions, as 

explained further below, we believe 

these potential emissions increases are 

offset by other substantial program 

improvements that reduce emissions 

and therefore, considered together, will 

not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment of 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), RFP, or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act.22

First, as to the commenter’s assertion 

that EPA did not adequately evaluate 13 

CCR section 2261(b)(7) in the CaRFG3 

regulations, we have evaluated this 

provision and concluded that our 

approval of it satisfies section 110(l) 

requirements. Section 2261(b)(7) 

contains a temporary measure that 

allows gasoline producers and importers 

that comply with the revised Predictive 

Model Procedures prior to their effective 

date 23 to blend higher volumes of 

denatured ethanol into California 

Reformulated Blendstock for Oxygenate 

Blending (CARBOB) than the amount 

specified by the common carrier 

pipeline specifications.24 CARB adopted 

this provision as an early compliance 

measure, to temporarily allow for some 

flexibility to increase denatured ethanol 

blending provided the resulting gasoline 

meets all emission reduction 

requirements calculated in accordance 

with the revised Predictive Model 

Procedures.25 As such, even during the 

early compliance period, section 

2261(b)(7) does not allow for 

exceedances of existing emission 

standards and, therefore, does not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment, 

RFP, or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act.26

Moreover, this temporary measure 

expires on December 31, 2009, after 

which the rule requires compliance 

with the revised Predictive Model 

Procedures and prohibits blending any 

higher volume of denatured ethanol into 

CARBOB than the amount specified by 

the common carrier pipeline 

specification.27 Because our approval of 

these revised regulations will not 

become effective until after this early 

compliance measure has expired, our 

approval of this provision has no effect 

on emissions and will not interfere with 

applicable requirements under CAA 

section 110(l). 

Second, as to the commenter’s 

assertion that EPA did not adequately 

evaluate the increase in maximum 

allowed denaturant 28 content from 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

26656 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

rather than a controlled substance subject to 

regulation by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and 

Firearms. See CARB Staff Report at pg. 40. 

29See 13 CCR section 2262 (adopted September 

18, 1992); 60 FR 43383 (August 21, 1995). See also 

fn. 26, supra. 

30The 4.76% denaturant limit in the pre-2007 

CaRFG3 regulations was based on earlier versions 

of the ASTM standard specification for denatured 

fuel ethanol for blending with gasoline (ASTM 

04806–99). See CARB Staff Report at pg. 40. 

31The Federal Complex Model at 40 CFR 80.45 

does not take permeation emissions from ethanol 

use into account. 

32See 13 CCR section 2262.6; CARB Staff Report, 

Executive Summary, pp. i, xviii. Starting December 

31, 2003, the CaRFG3 regulations prohibited 

California gasoline produced with MTBE and 

placed a conditional ban on the use of any 

oxygenate other than ethanol as a replacement for 

MTBE in California gasoline. Id. at ii. 

33 Id. at xvii, xviii. 

34For example, the producer or importer must not 

be subject to any outstanding requirements to 

provide offsets at the same production facility or 

import facility under section 2264(c). 13 CCR 

section 2264.2(d)(1)(E). 

35 13 CCR section 2265.1. 

36 13 CCR section 2262. A ‘‘flat limit’’ is ‘‘a single 

limit for a fuel property that applies to all California 

gasoline sold or supplied from a California 

production facility or import facility.’’ CARB, 

California Procedures for Evaluating Alternative 

Specifications for Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline 

Using the California Predictive Model, last amended 

April 25, 2008, at pg. 8 (definitions). 

37 40 CFR 80.195(a)(1). 

38CARB, Final Regulation Order, ‘‘Amendments 

to the California Reformulated Gasoline Regulations 

to Postpone Imposition of the CaRFG3 Standards 

and the Prohibition of MTBE and Oxygenates Other 

Than Ethanol in California Gasoline from December 

31, 2002 to December 31, 2003,’’ Adopted November 

8, 2002, at 13 CCR section 2261(b)(1)(B). 

39 13 CCR section 2265.1(a)(2)(A). See also CARB 

FSOR at pg. 25. 

4.76% to 5.00% under 13 CCR section 

2262.9, we have evaluated this 

provision also and concluded that it 

satisfies section 110(l) requirements. 

California’s SIP-approved RFG program 

does not contain any limit on the 

volume of denaturant that may be 

blended with gasoline.29 As such, the 

addition of this limit to the SIP program 

does not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment of 

the NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. Additionally, 

we note that this change was designed 

to align the CaRFG3 program with the 

current ASTM standards and does not 

alter any emission reduction 

requirements.30

Finally, the CaRFG3 regulations were 

specifically designed to mitigate the 

increases in evaporative emissions 

(referred to as ‘‘permeation’’ 31) from onroad vehicles resulting from the 

addition of ethanol to gasoline.32 The 

CARB Staff Report states that the 

revised CaRFG3 program would 

‘‘eliminate or offset all ethanol 

permeation effects from motor vehicles 

and a significant portion of the 

permeation effect from off-road 

applications.’’ 33 Although the proposed 

revisions were not expected to fully 

mitigate the emissions impact of the 

increase in permeation emissions from 

off-road sources, these relatively small 

emission increases are outweighed by 

the significant reductions in emissions 

from on-road sources, together with the 

updated compliance provisions that 

improve the enforceability of the 

program, as discussed above in 

Response 1. As such, the CaRFG3 rule 

revisions do not interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment or RFP, or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act, 

consistent with CAA section 110(l). 

Comment 4: The commenter asserted 

that EPA’s approval of the ‘‘offsetting 

emissions associated with higher sulfur 

levels’’ compliance option would violate 

CAA section 110(l). The commenter 

stated that the ‘‘averaging option’’ in 

section 2265.1 allows for fuel that does 

not comply with CaRFG3 to be averaged 

with cleaner batches of gasoline—i.e., 

that it allows for noncompliant fuel to 

be sold and the excess pollution from 

use of such noncompliant fuel to be 

offset with credits from cleaner batches 

from that facility. The commenter 

asserted that ‘‘EPA proposes to approve 

this provision with one sentence of 

analysis,’’ despite a relatively complex 

compliance scheme. Specifically, the 

commenter raised three concerns about 

this provision: 

First, the commenter stated that 

attainment and RFP demonstrations rely 

on transportation emission inventories 

based on CaRFG3 compliant fuel, and 

that the ‘‘averaging option’’ may interfere 

with these demonstrations by allowing 

producers or importers to produce 

noncompliant fuel during the ozone 

season (May–October) and ‘‘offset the 

deficit’’ up to three months later. 

Second, the commenter stated that 

attainment and RFP demonstrations 

relying on CaRFG3 emission reductions 

could be compromised because there is 

no geographic requirement for the 

‘‘credit’’ fuel to be used in the same 

airshed as the noncompliant fuel. 

Third, the commenter stated that the 

rule allows for tripling the allowable 

sulfur content of certain fuels, from 10 

ppm up to the Federal 30 ppm sulfur 

standard, which could result in 

substantial increases in emissions. 

Response 4: We disagree and believe 

that our approval of the ‘‘offsetting’’ 

compliance option referenced by the 

commenter, and in particular section 

2265.1, is consistent with the 

requirements of CAA section 110(l). 

Section 2265.1 contains detailed 

requirements for the offsets that must be 

achieved by a producer or importer who 

elects to comply with the ‘‘[Predictive 

Model] emissions offsetting compliance 

option’’ under section 2264.2(d) (‘‘PM 

offset option’’). The PM offset option is 

available only to producers and 

importers that meet specified criteria 34

and essentially allows for the 

production or importation of highersulfur batches of gasoline provided the 

emission impacts of the higher-sulfur 

batch are fully mitigated through 

subsequent cleaner batches of gasoline 

at the same facility.35 The PM offset 

option provides gasoline producers and 

importers some flexibility in meeting 

the 20 parts per million by weight 

(ppmw) sulfur content flat limit in the 

CaRFG3 regulations,36 which is lower 

than the Federal sulfur content limit of 

30 ppm 37 and became effective on 

December 31, 2003.38

Specifically, section 2265.1(a) 

contains detailed notification, reporting, 

and recordkeeping requirements that 

enable CARB to ensure that the 

increased emissions from higher-sulfur 

batches permitted under the PM offset 

option are in fact fully mitigated. For 

example, subsection (a)(2)(A) requires 

that a producer or importer electing to 

use the PM offset option provide to the 

Executive Officer in writing, before the 

start of physical transfer of the gasoline 

from the production or import facility, 

specific information about, among other 

things: the percent change in emissions 

values for NOX, total ozone forming 

potential, and potency-weighted toxics 

for the targeted alternative fuel 

specifications; the production facility or 

import facility name, batch name, blend 

identity, grade of California gasoline, 

and location (with sufficient specificity 

to allow CARB inspectors to locate and 

sample the gasoline); the designated 

emissions offsetting limit for Reid vapor 

pressure, sulfur content, benzene 

content, aromatics content, olefins 

content, and other fuel characteristics; 

and within 24 hours after the start of the 

physical transfer, the date and time of 

the start of physical transfer from the 

production or import facility. This 

information enables CARB to identify 

who is blending fuels with elevated 

sulfur levels, how much is being 

blended, the potential air pollution 

impacts of the elevated sulfur level, and 

the specific time that the physical 

transfer of the gasoline from the 

production or import facility is 

completed.39

Then, within 90 days after the start of 

physical transfer of such higher-sulfur 

gasoline, the producer or importer who 

has elected to comply with the PM 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 26657 

40 ‘‘Final blend credit’’ is defined as ‘‘the credit 

from a final blend of gasoline that may be used to 

offset a producer’s or importer’s final blend deficit’’ 

and must be calculated in accordance with a 

specified formula provided in the definition. 13 

CCR section 2260(a)(10.5). 41 ‘‘Final blend deficit’’ is defined as ‘‘the deficit 

from a final blend of gasoline that a producer or 

importer must offset’’ and must be calculated in 

accordance with a specific formula provided in the 

definition. 13 CCR section 2260(a)(10.7). For 

purposes of complying with the PM offset option, 

section 2265.1(c) also requires that the ‘‘final blend 

deficit’’ be multiplied by a specific factor that 

increases the amount of required offsets from the 

‘‘credit’’ blend. 42 13 CCR section 2270(a). 43We note that these emissions effects are not 

likely to occur. According to CARB, unlike most 

other fuel properties governed by the CaRFG3 rules, 

increases in sulfur levels in individual batches do 

not result in immediate emission increases in 

vehicles using the batch, and although sulfur 

degrades catalyst performance the effect is 

reversible. See CARB FSOR at pg. 24; CARB Staff 

Report at pg. 36. 

44See 13 CCR section 2262.2 (adopted September 

18, 1992); 60 FR 43383 (August 21, 1995). 

45 40 CFR 80.195(a)(1). See also ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for EPA’s Proposed Approval of 

Rule Revisions for Reformulated Gasoline and 

Diesel Fuel Sold or Supplied as Motor Vehicle 

Fuels in California,’’ June 30, 2009 (TSD), at pg. 2. 

46 13 CCR section 2262. CARB has stated that 

sulfur levels in CaRFG3 currently average about 10 

ppmw but has not established a sulfur cap limit at 

this level. See FSOR at pg. 17. 

47See CARB FSOR at pg. 12 (citing California 

Health and Safety Code section 43013.1(b)(1)). 

offset option must complete physical 

transfer, from the same facility, of 

California gasoline with a ‘‘final blend 

credit’’ 40 in sufficient quantity and for 

the same emissions parameter (NOX, 

total ozone forming potential, or 

potency-weighted toxics) to fully offset 

the ‘‘final blend deficit.’’ 41 This 90-day 

limit and the requirement to produce 

the ‘‘credit fuel’’ from the same facility 

provide a reasonable connection 

between the emissions from the noncompliant fuel and the offsetting 

emission reductions. 

Finally, the testing and recordkeeping 

requirements of 13 CCR section 2270 

have been revised to apply to any 

producer or importer that has elected to 

be subject to the PM offset option 

pursuant to section 2264.2(d). As such, 

each producer or importer who elects to 

be subject to the PM offset option is 

required to, among other things: Sample 

and test for numerous characteristics of 

the final blend produced or imported, 

including the sulfur, aromatic 

hydrocarbon, olefin, oxygen, and 

benzene content; maintain, for two years 

from the date of each sampling, records 

showing the sample date, identity of 

blend sampled, container or other vessel 

sampled, final blend volume, and fuel 

characteristics; and provide to the 

Executive Officer any such records 

within 20 days of a written request.42

To the extent that the emissions from 

noncompliant fuel may occur during the 

ozone season and the deficit offset three 

months later, or that ‘‘credit’’ fuel may be 

used in an airshed that has better air 

quality than the airshed where the 

noncompliant fuel is used, as the 

commenter notes may occur, these 

possibilities do not alter our section 

110(l) analysis. The likelihood of 

adverse air pollution impacts 43 from 

such events is counterbalanced by a 

similar likelihood of air quality 

improvements, i.e., that emission 

reductions from credit fuel may occur 

during the ozone season or within a 

more polluted airshed, to offset 

emissions from noncompliant fuel 

produced outside of the ozone season or 

in a less polluted airshed. In any event, 

we believe the rigorous monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in section 2265.1, together 

with the detailed requirements for 

calculating offsets, as discussed above, 

will ensure that any emissions increases 

resulting from noncompliant fuel 

permitted under the PM offset option 

will be offset by an equivalent or greater 

amount of emission reductions. 

It is important to note that, even 

taking into account the PM offset 

option, the CaRFG3 sulfur content limits 

that we are approving today are 

substantially more stringent than the 

sulfur content limits in California’s SIPapproved RFG program, which 

establishes a flat limit of 40 ppm and an 

option to establish a higher sulfur limit 

accompanied by offset requirements.44

Furthermore, we note that section 

2265.1 provides an alternative 

compliance option only for purposes of 

meeting California’s more stringent 

sulfur content flat limit of 20 ppmw and 

does not alter the applicability of the 

federal sulfur content limit of 30 ppm.45

As such, in no event may a higher-sulfur 

batch of gasoline that qualifies for the 

PM offset option under section 

2264.2(d) exceed the Federal sulfur 

content limit of 30 ppmw. 

In sum, given the detailed 

recordkeeping, reporting, and testing 

requirements associated with the PM 

offset option, the detailed criteria for 

calculation of the required offsetting 

emission reductions, the substantial 

strengthening of the sulfur content 

limits in comparison to the SIPapproved limits, and the upper bound of 

30 ppmw in the Federal regulations, we 

believe that our approval of the PM 

offset option does not interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment, RFP, or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. 

Finally, as to the commenter’s 

assertion that the rule allows for tripling 

the allowable sulfur content of certain 

fuels, we disagree. As explained above, 

the current CaRFG3 standards establish 

a 20 ppmw sulfur content flat limit for 

producers and refiners of California 

gasoline.46 The offsetting compliance 

option in section 2265.1 allows a 

producer to mitigate the excess 

emissions of a gasoline batch that 

exceeds the 20 ppmw sulfur content flat 

limit, but it does not allow any 

exceedance of the Federal 30 ppm sulfur 

content limit. 

Comment 5: The commenter asserted 

that the ‘‘Alternative Emission 

Reduction Plan (AERP) creates a 

loophole which compromises 

enforceability of the rule,’’ and that the 

CARB Executive Officer has discretion 

to approve an AERP without verifying 

the required emission reductions. 

Specifically, the commenter stated that 

the AERP does not contain adequate 

reporting, monitoring or verification 

provisions to ensure that the emission 

reductions are being carried out as 

proposed, and that the AERP ‘‘only 

requires the producer, importer, or third 

party to submit to the Executive Officer 

‘information that establishes * * * the 

offsets accrued.’ 13 CCR 2265.5(i)(1). 

Furthermore, the commenter stated, ‘‘the 

types of emissions offsets allowed [by 

the AERP] are particularly prone to be 

speculative, and may in many instances 

not actually produce the emissions 

reductions used to offset increased 

emissions from permeation.’’ 

For example, the commenter stated, 

the ‘‘incentive grants’’ option in section 

2265.5(i)(3) allows for speculative and 

difficult-to-enforce offsets because it 

allows entities to claim offsets 

‘‘associated with incentive grants for 

cleaner-than-required engines, 

equipment and other sources of 

pollution * * *.’’ The commenter 

asserted that standards for the Executive 

Officer in determining whether these 

emission reductions are real, additional, 

and enforceable are ‘‘wholly absent from 

the AERP and the rule.’’ 

Response 5: We disagree. The 

Alternative Emission Reduction Plan 

(AERP) provision in 13 CCR section 

2265.5 is a temporary flexibility option 

to ensure that emission increases caused 

by the addition of ethanol to gasoline 

are fully mitigated consistent with State 

law requirements.47 We believe the rule 

contains adequate compliance 

provisions, enforcement mechanisms, 

and limitations on the Executive 

Officer’s discretion to meet the 

enforceability requirements of CAA 

section 110(a). 

Specifically, section 2265.5 provides 

gasoline producers an alternative option 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

26658 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

48See CARB FSOR at pg. 37. 

49 13 CCR section 2265.5(a)(3). 

50 13 CCR section 2265.5(a)(6). 

51 13 CCR § 2265.5(b). 

52Health and Safety Code section 43027 states 

that ‘‘[a]ny person who violates any provision of 

this part, or any rule, regulation, permit, variance, 

or order of the state board, pertaining to fuel 

requirements and standards * * * is strictly liable 

for a civil penalty of not more than thirty-five 

thousand dollars ($35,000).’’ H&SC section 43027(c). 

Negligent violations can result in civil penalties of 

up to $50,000 and willful and intentional violations 

can result in civil penalties of up to $250,000. 

H&SC section 43027(a), (b). 

53We note, as a practical matter, that CARB has 

not received any applications for an AERP or a 

third-party AERP and does not expect any. See email from Renee Littaua, Manager, Fuels Section, 

CARB, October 20, 2009. 

to offset emissions from ethanol 

permeation while refinery modifications 

are being made to allow the production 

of fuel formulations that fully comply 

with CaRFG3 standards.48 An AERP is 

available only to a producer or importer 

who, among other things, would satisfy 

all of the criteria for approval in the 

applicable Predictive Model Procedures 

‘‘but for the elevated emissions 

associated with permeation.’’ 49 All 

AERPs sunset on December 31, 2011, 

with the possibility of an extension of 

up to one year.50

Contrary to the commenter’s 

assertion, section 2265.5 contains 

rigorous monitoring, reporting, and 

verification provisions to ensure that the 

proposed emission reductions under an 

AERP will be achieved, in addition to 

specific procedures for Executive 

Officer action on an AERP application. 

First, section 2265.5 establishes 

detailed testing, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. An application 

for an AERP must contain, among other 

things: Calculations of the total 

emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX), 

total ozone forming potential, and 

potency-weighted toxics that would be 

associated with the use of California 

gasoline were the producer or importer 

to eliminate the emissions associated 

with permeation from its gasoline; 

documentation of the amounts of these 

pollutants associated with the 

producer’s or importer’s gasoline; a 

demonstration that the emission 

reduction strategy(ies) in the AERP will 

result in equivalent or better emission 

benefits for these pollutants than would 

be achieved through elimination of 

permeation emissions from the gasoline 

for the same affected region and for the 

period the AERP will be in effect; the 

date(s) that the offsets will accrue and 

expire for each emission reduction 

strategy; and the proposed 

recordkeeping, reporting, monitoring, 

and testing procedures that the producer 

or importer plans to use to demonstrate 

continued compliance with the AERP.51

Following approval of an AERP, 

section 2265.5(h)(1) requires the 

producer or importer to provide the 

Executive Officer with detailed 

information, before the start of physical 

transfer, about the estimated volume of 

the gasoline blend; the identity of the 

approved AERP and the NOX, total 

ozone forming potential, and potencyweighted toxics emission limits stated 

in that plan; supporting documentation, 

calculations, and emissions test data; 

and within 24 hours after the start of the 

physical transfer, the date and time of 

the start of physical transfer from the 

production or import facility. Section 

2265.5(i) also requires the producer or 

importer to notify the Executive Officer 

in writing of the date that the offsets 

actually accrued, together with all 

documentation, calculations, emissions 

test data, and other information that 

establishes the amounts of emission 

reductions. Together, these provisions 

provide clear information upon which 

the Executive Officer can base a 

determination whether the proposed 

emission reductions (i.e., the offsets) are 

real, additional, and enforceable, and to 

actually verify the emission reductions 

following physical transfer of the 

gasoline blend. 

Second, section 2265.5(c) establishes 

specific procedures for the Executive 

Officer’s action on an AERP application. 

Among other things, the Executive 

Officer is required to make available for 

public review all documents pertaining 

to an AERP, provide notice of each 

application to specified parties in 

addition to public notice, and provide a 

30-day public comment period, after 

which the Executive Officer may take 

final action to ‘‘either approve or deny’’ 

the AERP application. These procedures 

provide the public an opportunity to 

participate in the decisionmaking 

process on an AERP and limit the 

Executive Officer’s discretion to either 

approving the application, if it satisfies 

the requirements specified in section 

2265.5(b), or denying it if it does not. 

Finally, section 2265.5(e) establishes 

specific enforceable prohibitions on, 

among other things, selling or producing 

gasoline that creates emissions 

associated with permeation except in 

compliance with an approved AERP; 

failure to meet any requirement of 

section 2265.5 or any condition of an 

approved AERP; false reporting of any 

information contained in an AERP or 

supporting documentation; and any net 

exceedance of NOX, total ozone forming 

potential, or potency-weighted toxics 

during the period of the AERP. 

Violations of these provisions are 

subject to civil penalties under section 

43027 of the California Health and 

Safety Code.52 These clear prohibitions, 

together with the specific information 

and compliance provisions required in 

each AERP application, provide 

adequate means for CARB to take 

enforcement action where the proposed 

emission reductions are not achieved, as 

well as for other violations of AERP 

conditions. 

Taken together, these detailed 

compliance mechanisms ensure that 

only those AERPs that satisfy the 

detailed requirements specified in 

section 2265.5(b) will be approved, and 

the procedural regulations provide an 

additional assurance of transparent 

decisionmaking processes. 

The commenter’s assertion that the 

‘‘incentive grants’’ option in section 

2265.5(i)(3) ‘‘allows for speculative and 

difficult-to-enforce offsets’’ is not 

entirely clear. Section 2265.5(i) requires 

that the producer or importer subject to 

an AERP notify the Executive Officer in 

writing and provide all supporting 

documentation of the amount of NOX, 

total ozone forming potential, and 

potency-weighted toxics associated with 

the proposed offsets or other reduction 

strategies, as provided in the approved 

AERP, and the date(s) the offsets 

accrued. Section 2265.5(i)(3) lists 

‘‘incentive grants for cleaner-thanrequired engines, equipment and other 

sources of pollution providing early or 

extra emission reductions’’ among the 

emission reduction strategies for which 

a producer or importer must provide the 

requisite notifications to the Executive 

Officer. To the extent the commenter 

intended to argue that this provision 

allows for unenforceable offsets, we 

disagree for the reasons stated above.53

Comment 6: The commenter asserted 

that several elements of the proposed 

SIP revisions contain unenforceable 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ provisions and 

that EPA approval of these provisions 

would violate CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). 

Specifically, the commenter stated that 

the new alternative compliance plan 

provisions in sections 2265.1 and 

2265.5, the addition of these provisions 

in section 2271 as circumstances in 

which a variance may be requested, and 

the amended CARBOB regulations in 

section 2266.5 all provide for director’s 

discretion without adequate limits on 

such discretion. 

The commenter referenced a ‘‘notation 

1’’ in EPA’s TSD for the proposed rule, 

which states that ‘‘Director’s discretion 

is limited by explicit and replicable 

procedures within the rule that define 

how discretion is to be exercised and 

that assures equivalent emission 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 26659 

54 16 CCR section 2271 (adopted September 18, 

1992); 60 FR 43383 (August 21, 1995). 

55The Executive Officer is required to hold a 

public hearing on each application containing the 

required information, to make the application 

available to the public at least 20 days prior to the 

hearing, to provide a reasonable opportunity to 

submit written and oral testimony at the hearing 

and to consider such testimony. 13 CCR section 

2271(b), (c) (adopted September 18, 1992); 60 FR 

43383 (August 21, 1995). 

56 16 CCR section 2271 (adopted September 18, 

1992); 60 FR 43383 (August 21, 1995). 

57 13 CCR section 2271(e)(2) (2007). 

58 13 CCR section 2271(e)(2)(B) (2007). 59 74 FR at 33198. 

reductions.’’ As applied to 13 CCR 

sections 2265.5 and 2266.5, the 

commenter asserted that this notation 

‘‘appears * * * to be an attempt by EPA 

to preemptively address concerns 

regarding director’s discretion.’’ The 

commenter cited several EPA policy 

statements regarding director’s 

discretion provisions and appropriate 

limitations on such discretion, and 

stated that the ‘‘notation 1’’ in EPA’s 

TSD ‘‘appear[s] to water down the 

requirement’’ that director’s discretion 

provisions ‘‘tightly define how the 

discretion will be exercised to assure 

equivalent emission reductions.’’ 

In sum, the commenter asserted that 

EPA has not shown that the director’s 

discretion provisions in sections 2265.1, 

2265.5, 2271, and the amended 

CARBOB regulations in section 2266.5 

satisfy the requirements to ‘‘include 

explicit and replicable procedures 

which tightly define how the discretion 

will be exercised, much less how the 

discretion will be exercised to assure 

equivalent emission reductions.’’ Absent 

more specific limitations on director’s 

discretion or a requirement that each 

exercise of such discretion be approved 

by EPA, the commenter stated, these 

provisions are unenforceable and violate 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). 

Response 6: We disagree. As to 

sections 2265.1 (PM offset option) and 

2265.5 (AERPs), we believe these 

provisions are enforceable for the 

reasons discussed above in responses 4 

and 5, respectively. Accordingly, the 

addition of sections 2265.1 and 2265.5 

to the provisions in section 2271 for 

which a person may seek a variance, 

consistent with the criteria outlined in 

section 2271, is permissible. Moreover, 

since our approval of section 2271 into 

the SIP in 1995,54 CARB has revised it 

to add further criteria governing the 

Executive Officer’s evaluation of a 

variance request. These rule revisions 

define even more specifically how the 

Executive Officer is to exercise 

discretion in acting on a variance 

request and strengthen the 

enforceability of the rule. 

The SIP-approved version of section 

2271 requires that the Executive 

Officer’s decision to grant or deny a 

variance be based ‘‘solely upon 

substantial evidence in the record of the 

variance proceeding,’’ 55 and states that 

a variance may not be granted unless the 

Executive Officer makes all of the 

following findings: (1) That, because of 

reasons beyond the reasonable control 

of the applicant, requiring compliance 

with the applicable section(s) would 

result in an extraordinary economic 

hardship; (2) that the public interest in 

mitigating the extraordinary hardship by 

issuing the variance outweighs the 

public interest in avoiding any 

increased emissions of air contaminants 

which would result from issuing the 

variance; and (3) that the compliance 

plan proposed by the applicant can 

reasonably be implemented and will 

achieve compliance as expeditiously as 

possible.56

These requirements remain 

unchanged. CARB has, however, revised 

section 2271 to require that each of 

these three findings be made in 

accordance with detailed factors listed 

in section 2271(e). For example, in 

determining whether the public interest 

in mitigating the extraordinary hardship 

by issuing the variance outweighs the 

public interest in avoiding increased air 

emissions, the Executive Officer must 

‘‘consider the potential effects of issuing 

or denying the variance on the 

applicant’s customers, the producers of 

complying fuel, the general public, and 

upon air quality,’’ and must also 

consider whether granting the variance 

will place the applicant at a cost 

advantage over other persons, including 

those persons who produce complying 

gasoline.57 Importantly, in evaluating 

the potential effect of the variance upon 

air quality, the Executive Officer must 

estimate both the excess exhaust 

emissions and the excess evaporative 

hydrocarbon emissions that will result 

from granting the variance in 

accordance with specific calculations, 

including use of the California 

Predictive Model Procedures with 

specified inputs.58 These new 

provisions tightly define how the 

Executive Officer’s discretion will be 

exercised to assure equivalent emission 

reductions. 

As to section 2266.5 (amended 

CARBOB regulations), the commenter 

has not identified any discretionary 

provisions that are of particular 

concern. In the absence of a more 

specific explanation, we have construed 

the comment to refer to several 

provisions in section 2266.5 that allow 

the Executive Officer to enter into 

protocols for determining compliance. 

For example, section 2266.5(a)(2)(E) 

authorizes the Executive Officer to enter 

into a written protocol with an 

individual producer or importer for the 

purpose of specifying an alternative 

method for determining whether a final 

blend of CARBOB complies with the 

standards for California gasoline, ‘‘as 

long as the executive officer reasonably 

determines that application of the 

protocol is not less stringent or 

enforceable than application of the 

express terms of [the applicable 

standards].’’ Section 2266.5(b)(4) 

imposes identical conditions on the 

Executive Officer’s authority to enter 

into a written protocol with an 

individual producer or importer for the 

purpose of specifying how the 

requirements for certain notifications to 

CARB should be applied to the 

producer’s or importer’s particular 

operations. We believe that section 

2266.5 adequately defines how the 

Executive Officer’s discretion is to be 

exercised for these limited purposes. 

Comment 7: The commenter asserted 

that EPA must make another 

equivalency determination to maintain 

the RFG enforcement exemption for 

California. Specifically, the commenter 

stated that EPA ‘‘relies heavily on an 

earlier equivalency determination made 

in December 2005 in the context of an 

RFG enforcement exemption request 

approval,’’ that the relevance of the 2005 

enforcement exemption is unclear, and 

that ‘‘because significant changes are 

being proposed to the California RFG 

regulations, EPA must make another 

equivalency determination to continue 

exempting California gasoline from RFG 

regulation.’’ 

Response 7: We disagree. The CAA 

does not require that EPA revisit an 

equivalency determination for the RFG 

enforcement exemption each time we 

revise a SIP, and the commenter does 

not identify any such requirement. As 

explained in our response to comment 

1, above, we have concluded that the 

rationale supporting the CaRFG3 

enforcement exemption in 2005 

continues to support our action today. 

To the extent the commenter intended 

to argue that the facts underlying EPA’s 

2005 determination have significantly 

changed, such that that prior 

determination is no longer valid, we 

also disagree. Neither the CaRFG3 nor 

federal RFG compliance and 

enforcement programs have been 

significantly revised since our 2005 

equivalency determination.59 In the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

26660 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

60See fn. 8, supra. 

proposed rule we also stated that the 

revisions to the CaRFG3 regulations 

strengthen the requirements in the 

existing SIP. The commenter has not 

identified any factual changes that call 

into question our previous findings. 

Finally, we note that the commenter 

incorrectly suggests that the CaRFG3 

enforcement exemption allows EPA to 

‘‘exempt[ ] California gasoline from RFG 

regulation.’’ The CaRFG3 enforcement 

exemption applies only to certain 

federal RFG enforcement requirements 

and does not exempt California gasoline 

from any federal RFG standards.60

III. Final Action 

Under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean 

Air Act, EPA is approving revisions to 

the California regulations for 

reformulated gasoline (RFG) sold or 

supplied in California, as submitted on 

June 15, 2004 and February 3, 2009, and 

revisions to the regulations for diesel 

fuel sold or supplied in California, as 

submitted on February 3, 2009, as 

revisions to the California SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• 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); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

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 action 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 July 12, 2010. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Carbon monoxide, 

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental 

relations, Oxides of Nitrogen, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: December 11, 2009. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(204)(i)(A)(7), 

(c)(374), (c)(375) and (c)(376) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(204) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(7) Previously approved on August 21, 

1995, in paragraph (c)(204)(i)(A)(3) of 

this section, and now deleted without 

replacement: Title 13, California Code of 

Regulations, Reformulated Gasoline 

Regulations, sections 2262.1, 2262.2, 

and 2262.7. 

* * * * * 

(374) The following revisions to the 

California Reformulated Gasoline 

Regulations were submitted on June 15, 

2004 (2004 RFG Revision), by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) Title 13, California Code of 

Regulations, Division 3 (Air Resources 

Board), Chapter 5 (Standards for Motor 

Vehicle Fuels), Article 1 (Standards for 

Gasoline), Subarticle 1 (Gasoline 

Standards That Became Applicable 

Before 1996), sections 2253.4, ‘‘Lead in 

Gasoline’’ (operative August 12, 1991); 

2254, ‘‘Manganese Additive Content’’ 

(operative August 12, 1991); 2257, 

‘‘Required Additives in Gasoline’’ 

(operative July 16, 1999); 2259, 

‘‘Exemptions for Motor Vehicle Fuels 

Used in Test Programs’’ (operative 

February 15, 1995); Subarticle 2 

(Standards for Gasoline Sold Beginning 

March 1, 1996), sections 2260, 

‘‘Definitions’’ (operative May 1, 2003); 

2261, ‘‘Applicability of Standards; 

Additional Standards’’ (operative May 1, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 26661 

2003); 2262, ‘‘The California 

Reformulated Gasoline Phase 2 and 

Phase 3 Standards’’ (operative December 

24, 2002); 2262.3, ‘‘Compliance With the 

CaRFG Phase 2 and CaRFG Phase 3 

Standards for Sulfur, Benzene, Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons, Olefins, T50 and T90’’ 

(operative August 20, 2001); 2262.4, 

‘‘Compliance With the CaRFG Phase 2 

and CaRFG Phase 3 Standards for Reid 

Vapor Pressure’’ (operative December 

24, 2002); 2262.5, ‘‘Compliance With the 

Standards for Oxygen Content’’ 

(operative December 24, 2002); 2262.6, 

‘‘Prohibition of MTBE and Oxygenates 

Other Than Ethanol in California 

Gasoline Starting December 31, 2003’’ 

(operative May 1, 2003); 2262.9, 

‘‘Requirements Regarding Denatured 

Ethanol Intended For Use as a Blend 

Component in California Gasoline’’ 

(operative December 24, 2002); 2263, 

‘‘Sampling Procedures and Test 

Methods’’ (operative May 1, 2003); 

2263.7, ‘‘Multiple Notification 

Requirements’’ (operative September 2, 

2000); 2264, ‘‘Designated Alternative 

Limits’’ (operative August 20, 2001); 

2264.2, ‘‘Election of Applicable Limit for 

Gasoline Supplied From a Production or 

Import Facility’’ (operative September 2, 

2000); 2265, ‘‘Gasoline Subject to PM 

Alternative Specifications Based on the 

California Predictive Model’’ (operative 

December 24, 2002); 2266, ‘‘Certified 

Gasoline Formulations Resulting in 

Equivalent Emission Reductions Based 

on Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing’’ 

(operative August 20, 2001); 2266.5, 

‘‘Requirements Pertaining to California 

Reformulated Gasoline Blendstock for 

Oxygen Blending (CARBOB) and 

Downstream Blending’’ (operative May 

1, 2003); 2267, ‘‘Exemptions for Gasoline 

Used in Test Programs’’ (operative 

September 2, 2000); 2268, ‘‘Liability of 

Persons Who Commit Violations 

Involving Gasoline That Has Not Yet 

Been Sold or Supplied to a Motor 

Vehicle’’ (operative September 2, 2000); 

2269, ‘‘Submittal of Compliance Plans’’ 

(operative December 24, 2002); 2270, 

‘‘Testing and Recordkeeping’’ (operative 

December 24, 2002); 2271, ‘‘Variances’’ 

(operative December 24, 2002); 2272, 

‘‘CaRFG Phase 3 Standards for 

Qualifying Small Refiners’’ (operative 

May 1, 2003); 2273, ‘‘Labeling of 

Equipment Dispensing Gasoline 

Containing MTBE’’ (operative May 1, 

2003); 2273.5, ‘‘Documentation Provided 

with Delivery of Gasoline to Retail 

Outlets’’ (operative May 1, 2003). 

(2) ‘‘California Procedures for 

Evaluating Alternative Specifications for 

Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline Using 

the California Predictive Model,’’ as last 

amended December 11, 1998. 

(3) ‘‘California Procedures for 

Evaluating Alternative Specifications for 

Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline Using 

the California Predictive Model,’’ as last 

amended April 25, 2001. 

(4) ‘‘California Procedures for 

Evaluating Alternative Specifications for 

Gasoline Using Vehicle Emissions 

Testing,’’ as last amended April 25, 

2001. 

(5) ‘‘Procedures for Using the 

California Model for California 

Reformulated Gasoline Blendstocks for 

Oxygenate Blending (CARBOB),’’ as 

adopted April 25, 2001. 

(ii) Additional material. 

(A) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) Executive Order G–125–320, dated 

June 15, 2004, adopting the 2004 RFG 

Revision. 

(2) The following additional material 

is available for inspection at EPA Region 

9. To inspect this material, please 

contact EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California, 94105, 

Chief of Air Planning, (415) 947–8021. 

(i) Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Ethanol Content of 

Denatured Fuel Ethanol by Gas 

Chromatography, Designation: D 5501– 

94 (1998); Standard Test Method for 

Gum Content in Fuels by Jet 

Evaporation, Designation: D 381–00; 

Standard Test Method for Water Using 

Volumetric Karl Fischer Titration, 

Designation: E 203–96; Standard Test 

Method for Water in Organic Liquids by 

Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration, 

Designation: E 1064–00; Standard Test 

Methods for Chloride Ion In Water, 

Designation: D 512–89 (1999); Standard 

Test Methods for Copper in Water, 

Designation: D 1688–95; Standard Test 

Method for Acidity in Volatile Solvents 

and Chemical Intermediates Used in 

Paint, Varnish, Lacquer, and Related 

Products, Designation: D 1613–96 

(1999); Standard Test Method for 

Determination of pHe of Ethanol, 

Denatured Fuel Ethanol, and Fuel 

Ethanol (Ed75–Ed85), Designation: D 

6423–99. 

(ii) Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Total Sulfur in Light 

Hydrocarbons, Motor Fuels and Oils by 

Ultraviolet Fluorescence, Designation: D 

5453–93. 

(iii) Standard Test Method for 

Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, 

DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1 to 

C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas 

Chromatography, Designation: D 4815– 

99; Standard Test Method for 

Distillation of Petroleum Products at 

Atmospheric Pressure, Designation: D 

86–99a; Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Olefin Content of 

Gasolines by Supercritical-Fluid 

Chromatography, Designation: D 6550– 

00. 

(375) The following revisions to the 

California Reformulated Gasoline 

Regulations were submitted on February 

3, 2009 (2009 RFG Revision), by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) Title 13, California Code of 

Regulations, Division 3 (Air Resources 

Board), Chapter 5 (Standards for Motor 

Vehicle Fuels), Article 1 (Standards for 

Gasoline), Subarticle 2 (Standards for 

Gasoline Sold Beginning March 1, 

1996), sections 2260, ‘‘Definitions’’ 

(operative August 29, 2008); 2261, 

‘‘Applicability of Standards; Additional 

Standards’’ (operative August 29, 2008); 

2262, ‘‘The California Reformulated 

Gasoline Phase 2 and Phase 3 

Standards’’ (operative August 29, 2008); 

2262.3, ‘‘Compliance With the CaRFG 

Phase 2 and CaRFG Phase 3 Standards 

for Sulfur, Benzene, Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons, Olefins, T50 and T90’’ 

(operative August 29, 2008); 2262.4, 

‘‘Compliance With the CaRFG Phase 2 

and CaRFG Phase 3 Standards for Reid 

Vapor Pressure’’ (operative August 29, 

2008); 2262.5, ‘‘Compliance With the 

Standards for Oxygen Content’’ 

(operative August 29, 2008); 2262.6, 

‘‘Prohibition of MTBE and Oxygenates 

Other Than Ethanol in California 

Gasoline Starting December 31, 2003’’ 

(operative April 9, 2005); 2262.9, 

‘‘Requirements Regarding Denatured 

Ethanol Intended For Use as a Blend 

Component in California Gasoline’’ 

(operative August 29, 2008); 2263, 

‘‘Sampling Procedures and Test 

Methods’’ (operative August 29, 2008); 

2263.7, ‘‘Multiple Notification 

Requirements’’ (operative August 29, 

2008); 2264, ‘‘Designated Alternative 

Limits’’ (operative August 20, 2001); 

2264.2, ‘‘Election of Applicable Limit for 

Gasoline Supplied From a Production or 

Import Facility’’ (operative August 29, 

2008); 2265, ‘‘Gasoline Subject to PM 

Alternative Specifications Based on the 

California Predictive Model’’ (operative 

August 29, 2008); 2265.1, ‘‘Offsetting 

Emissions Associated with Higher 

Sulfur Levels’’ (operative August 29, 

2008); 2265.5, ‘‘Alternative Emission 

Reduction Plan (AERP)’’ (operative 

August 29, 2008); 2266, ‘‘Certified 

Gasoline Formulations Resulting in 

Equivalent Emission Reductions Based 

on Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing’’ 

(operative August 29, 2008); 2266.5, 

‘‘Requirements Pertaining to California 

Reformulated Gasoline Blendstock for 

Oxygen Blending (CARBOB) and 

Downstream Blending’’ (operative 

August 29, 2008); 2270, ‘‘Testing and 

Recordkeeping’’ (operative August 29, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

26662 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2008); 2271, ‘‘Variances’’ (operative 

August 29, 2008); 2273, ‘‘Labeling of 

Equipment Dispensing Gasoline 

Containing MTBE’’ (operative August 

29, 2008). 

(2) ‘‘California Procedures for 

Evaluating Alternative Specifications for 

Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline Using 

the California Predictive Model,’’ as last 

amended August 7, 2008. 

(3) ‘‘Procedures for Using the 

California Model for California 

Reformulated Gasoline Blendstocks for 

Oxygenate Blending (CARBOB),’’ as last 

amended August 7, 2008. 

(ii) Additional material. 

(A) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) Executive Order S–09–001, dated 

February 3, 2009, adopting the 2009 

RFG Revision. 

(376) The following revisions to the 

California Diesel Fuel Regulations were 

submitted on February 3, 2009 (2009 

Diesel Fuels Revision), by the 

Governor’s Designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) Title 13, California Code of 

Regulations, Division 3 (Air Resources 

Board), Chapter 1 (Motor Vehicle 

Pollution Control Devices), Article 1 

(General Provisions), sections 1956.8, 

‘‘Exhaust Emissions Standards and Test 

Procedures—1985 and Subsequent 

Model Heavy-Duty Engines and 

Vehicles’’ (operative December 31, 

2008); 1960.1, ‘‘Exhaust Emissions 

Standards and Test Procedures—1981 

through 2006 Model Passenger Cars, 

Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles’’ 

(operative March 26, 2004); 1961, 

‘‘Exhaust Emissions Standards and Test 

Procedures—2004 and Subsequent 

Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty and 

Medium-Duty Vehicles’’ (operative June 

16, 2008); Chapter 5 (Standards for 

Motor Vehicle Fuels), Article 2 

(Standards for Diesel Fuel), sections 

2281, ‘‘Sulfur Content of Diesel Fuel’’ 

(operative August 4, 2005); 2282, 

‘‘Aromatic Hydrocarbon Content of 

Diesel Fuel’’ (operative August 4, 2005); 

2284, ‘‘Lubricity of Diesel Fuel’’ 

(operative August 4, 2005); 2285, 

‘‘Exemption from Diesel Fuel 

Requirements for Military-Specification 

Fuels Used in Qualifying Military 

Vehicles’’ (operative August 14, 2004); 

Chapter 14 (Verification Procedure, 

Warranty and In-Use Compliance 

Requirements for In-Use Strategies to 

Control Emissions from Diesel Engines), 

section 2701, ‘‘Definitions’’ (operative 

January 1, 2005). 

(2) Title 17, California Code of 

Regulations, Division 3 (Air Resources), 

Chapter 1 (Air Resources Board), 

Subchapter 7.5 (Airborne Toxic Control 

Measures), section 93114, ‘‘Airborne 

Toxic Control Measure To Reduce 

Particulate Emissions from DieselFueled Engines—Standards for 

Nonvehicular Diesel Fuel’’ (operative 

August 14, 2004). 

(ii) Additional material. 

(A) California Air Resources Board. 

(1) Executive Order S–09–001, dated 

February 3, 2009, adopting the 2009 

Diesel Fuels Revision. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–11005 Filed 5–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0032; FRL–8824–5] 

Fluazinam; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of fluazinam in 

or on bushberry subgroup 13-07B; 

onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A; lettuce, 

head; and lettuce, leaf. This regulation 

additionally removes several established 

individual commodities and bushberry 

subgroup 13B, as they will be 

superseded by inclusion in bushberry 

subgroup 13-07B. Interregional Research 

Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective May 

12, 2010. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

July 12, 2010, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0032. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Nollen, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–7390; e-mail address: 

nollen.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to those engaged in the 

following activities: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Get Electronic Access to 

Other Related Information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR 

cite at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. 

To access the harmonized test 

guidelines referenced in this document 

electronically, please go to http:// 

www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ‘‘Test 

Methods and Guidelines.’’ 

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing 

Request? 

Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES