+(,121/,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 be less protective of public

health and welfare than applicable

Federal standards.

CARB also demonstrated continuing

existence of compelling 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

waiver based on a lack of a compelling

and extraordinary conditions.

CARB stated in'its request letters that

the amendments do not raise any

concerns of inadequate leadtime or

impose any inconsistent certification

requirements. EPA received information

during this proceeding that questioned:

whether the advance-technology partialzero-emission vehicles (ATPZEVs) .

provisions of the ZEV requirements

were of a type not consistent with

§ 202(a), and whether the partial-zeroemission vehicle (PZEV) and fuel-cell

vehicle (FCV) provisions of the 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 of federal preemption has not

met its burden of proof that 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" which require EPA to consider

CARB's within-the-scope request under

the criteria for a full waiver of federal

preemption. EPA finds that the party

opposing the within-the-scope

confirmation has not met its burden of

proof that the ZEV amendments raise

new issues and therefore I cannot find

that the within-the-scope confirmation

should be denied on this basis.

Therefore I confirm that CARB's ZEV

amendments as they affect the 2006 and

earlier MYs, as noted above, are withinthe-scope of existing waivers of federal

preemption. I also 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 of federal preemption for these

MYs. I also grant a waiver of federal

preemption of CARB's ZEV

amendments as they affect the 2007

through 2011 MYs. As explained further

in the Decision Document, EPA is not

making any determinations regarding a

waiver of federal preemption applicable

to 2012 and later MYs.

CARB did not seek a within-the-scope

confirmation of the 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 the LDT2 requirement) as

within-the-scope. While EPA did

request comment regarding CARB's

within-the-scope request for the 2003-

2006,MYs, EPA has not done so for the

2007 MY. As explained in the Decision

Document, EPA does not believe that a

further official request for comment is

needed at this time. Because the 2007

MY provisions are very similar to the

2005-2006 MY provisions, I confirm

that the 2007 MY requirements (with

the exception of the LDT2 requirement)

are within-the-scope of previous

waivers of federal preemption.

However, any party that wishes to object

to this determination may file such

objection as indicated in the-DATES and

ADDRESSES section above. Upon receipt

of a timely objection, EPA will consider

scheduling a public hearing to

reconsider these findings in a

subsequent Federal Register Notice.

A full explanation of EPA's decision,

including our review of comments

received in opposition to CARB's

request, is contained in a Decision

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 order to produce

nonroad engines and vehicles for sale in

California. For this reason, Ihereby

determine and find that this is a final

action of national applicability.

As with past waiver decisions, this

action is not a rule as defined by

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is

exempt from review by the Office of

Management and Budget as required for

rules and regulations by Executive

Order 12866.

In addition, this action is not a rule

as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has

not prepared a supporting regulatory

flexibility analysis addressing the

impact of this action on small business

entities.

Finally, the Administrator has

delegated the authority to make

determinations regarding waivers under

section 209(b) of the Act to the Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation.

Dated: December 21, 2006.

William L. Wehrum,

Acting Assistant Administratorfor Air and

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 List under Section

1541(b) of the Energy Policy Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy Act of 2005

(EPAct) includes a number of provisions

addressing state boutique fuel programs.

Section 1541(b) of this Act requires

EPA, in consultation with the

Department of Energy, to determine the

total number of fuels approved into all

state implementation plans (SIPs) as of

September 1, 2004, under section

211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

The EPAct also requires us to publish a

list of such fuels, including the states

and Petroleum Administration for

Defense District (PADD) in which they

are used, for public review and

comment. On June 6, 2006, we

published a draft list based upon a "fuel

type approach" along with an

explanation of our rationale in

developing it. We also published an

alternative list based upon a "state

specific approach." In this notice we are

finalizing the list of total 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 a fuel

characteristic or component that we

have regulated under section 211(c) (1)

are preempted.' EPA may waive

preemption through approval of the fuel

program into a State Implementation

Plan (SIP). Approval into the SIP

1 See CAA 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 or that other measures

exist and are technically possible to

implement, but are unreasonable or

impracticable.3 These state fuels

programs, which are often referred to as

"boutique" fuel programs 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 of quickly

solving the supply interruption.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005

(EPAct) amends the CAA by placing

additional restrictions on our authority

to waive preemption by approving a

state fuel into the SIP. These restrictions

are:

* We cannot approve a state fuel if it

would cause the total number of fuels

approved into SIPs to increase above the

number approved as of September 1,

2004.

* In cases where our approval would

not increase the total number of such

fuels, because the total number of fuels

in SIPs at that point is below the

number of fuels as of September 1, 2004,

then our approval requires a finding,

after consultation with the Department

of Energy (DOE), that the new fuel will

not cause supply or distribution

interruptions or have a significant

adverse impact on fuel producibility in

the affected or contiguous areas. 4

* We cannot approve a state fuel into

a SIP unless the fuel is already in an

existing SIP within that PADD, with the

exception of a 7.0 psi RVP fuel.5 EPA's

approval of a 7.0 psi RVP fuel would,

however, be subject to the other EPAct

restrictions.

As these restrictions make clear, how

we determine the total number of fuels

on the list may greatly affect states'

2 NAAQS are standards for ambient levels of

certain air pollutants (e.g. ground-level ozone) and

are designed to protect public health and welfare. 3 See CAA section 211(cX4)(C)(i), 42 U.S.C.

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

7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(IV).

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

7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(V). For a.pictorial depiction of the

PADD map, please refer to "Petroleum

Administration for Defense Districts" at http://

www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil-gaslpetroleum/

analysis-publications/oil-market.basics/

paddmap.htm.

ability to have future boutique fuels

programs approved into SIPs.

Section 1541(b) of the EPAct also

requires us, in consultation with the

Department of Energy -(DOE), to

determine the total number of fuels

approved into all state implementation

plans (SIPs) as of September 1, 2004,

under section 211(c)(4)(C), and publish

a list of such fuels, including the state

and PADD in which they are used for

public review and comment. On June 6,

2006, we published a draft list of state

fuels approved into SIPs under section

211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004 for

public review and comment. 6 The

notice included our draft interpretation

of the various EPAct boutique fuels

provisions described above. As we

discussed in the notice, the EPAct is

ambiguous as to the meaning of "total

number of fuels." We provided two

proposed interpretations for developing

the list. The first proposed approach

was the "fuel type approach." As

explained in the notice, this approach

would treat each type or kind of fuel as

a separate fuel, without respect to the

number of.different state

implementation plans that include this

fuel type. For example, all state fuels

with a Reid Vapor Pressure of 7.8

pounds per square inch (psi) would be

considered as one fuel in determining " the total number of fuels approved as of

September 1, 2004. 7 While several states

had a 7.8 psi RVP program on that date,

they would not be treated as different

fuels in determining the "total number

of fuels," 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, called the "state specific

approach." Under this approach, each

individual state using a type or kind of

fuel in a SIP would 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 of determining the

"total number of fuels." The state

specific interpretation would lead to as

many fuels as there are state fuel

programs in the various PADDs and, as

proposed, would have resulted in 15

different fuels.a 71 FR 32533-34.

6 See "Draft Boutique Fuels List Under Section

1541(b) of the Energy Policy Act and Request for

Public Comment-Notice." 71 FR 32532, 32533

(June 6, 2006).

7 Reid Vapor Pressure is the common measure of

fuel volatility. Volatility is the tendency of fuel to

evaporate.

8 For a more detailed description of the "fuel type

approach" and the "state specific approach," see 71

FR 32532, 32533-34. Also see the tables

corresponding to these approaches on pages 32535-

36 of that notice.

A. Our Final Interpretation of the EPAct

Boutique Fuel Provisions

In today's notice, we are adopting the

fuel type interpretation. We are

determining the total number of state

fuels approved into SIPs under section

211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004

based on the fuel type interpretation.

We will use both the fuel type

interpretation and the final list of fuels

in implementing the three EPAct criteria

for future decisions on approval of a

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 cause the total number of fuel

types on the list to increase above the

number approved on September.I,

2004. 9 Under the fuel type

interpretation, our approval of a state

7.8 psi RVP program, for example,

would not cause an increase in the

number of fuel types on the list because

that type of RVP program is already on

the list.

* In cases where our approval of a

fuel would increase the total number of

fuels types on the list but not above the

number approved as of September 1,

2004, because the total number of fuel

types in SIPs is below the number of

fuels types as of September 1, 2004, we

are required to make a finding after

consultation with the DOE that the fuel

does not cause supply or distribution

interruptions or have 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 or have 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 in the applicable PADD, with the

exception of the 7.0 psi RVP fuel type.10

Under the fuel type interpretation that

we are adopting today, the PADD

restriction would not extend to our

approval of a 7.0 psi RVP fuel, although

our approval of a 7.0 psi RVP fuel

would remain subject to the other EPAct

restrictions, discussed above. See also

Section I.C. below for a further

discussion of our interpretation and

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

7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(I),

10 See CAA 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 of the PADD restriction

provision in PADD 5.

B. List of 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 of 8 different fuel

types. See Section III, below, for the

final List of State Fuels approved under

section 211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1,

2004.

(i) 9.0 psi RVP Fuel Type

In proposing the draft list of boutique

fuels, we recognized that there were a few states that had 9.0 psi RVP fuel

programs approved into their SIPs as of

September 1, 2004. We explained,

however, that we do not believe 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 of fuels 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 of these 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

list but to remove it from the list at the same time. We proposed to exclude the

9.0 psi RVP fuel type from the list in

order to avoid this illogical outcome. As we further explained in the notice, we do not believe 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 not believe that adoption of the fuel

type interpretation affects our decision

not to list the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type.

We received two comments

concerning our treatment of the 9.0 psi

RVP fuel type. Our response to these

comments can be found in "Section II.

Comment Summary and Response,"

below.

(ii) Arizona Clean Burning Gasoline

(CBG)

Under our proposed fuel type

interpretation, we listed the total

number of fuels based onfthe kind or type of fuel 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.

12 See 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 fuel type (for example, 7.8 psi RVP,

7.2 psi RVP or 7.0 psi RVP). At proposal

therefore, we listed 7.0 psi RVP as a fuel

type with Arizona as one of the 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 of fuels,

namely summertime and wintertime

CBG. Both commenters said that

specifications for CBG were different in

winter, which was described as the

period beginning November 2-March

31, and summer, which was described

as the remaining portions of the

calendar year. Also one commenter

stated that both summer and winter

CBG have different specifications for

RVP, sulfur, aromatics, olefins, E200

and E300.

In today's notice, we are listing

Arizona CBG as two fuel typessummer CBG and non-summer CBG.

(See section III below for our final list

of the 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 psi RVP

requirement. We are therefore listing summer CBG as one fuel type, because

it has specifications that are different

from non-summer CBG. We have

removed Arizona from the list as one of

the states that uses the 7.0 psi fuel type.

We believe that our decision to list CBG

as two fuel types is similar to 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 order to

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 of our 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 of fuel types for purposes

of addressing local air quality problems.

(iii) RVP Fuel Types that Do Not

Provide a 1.0 psi Waiver for EthanolBlended Gasoline

In our draft list published June 6,

2006, we did not list any of the 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 psi RVP program for El Paso,

Texas as part of the 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 this requirement into the

respective SIPs.13 We received two

comments supporting our proposed

decision not to list these fuel programs as separate fuel types, and one comment

inquiring as to why EPA made no mention of RVP waivers for 10%

ethanol-gasoline blends. Our response

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

or do 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 not be able to adopt a

7.8 psi RVP program in their SIP that

allows a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanolblended gasoline, because there is no 7.8 psi RVP program approved in any,

SIP in either PADD 1 or 3 that allows

a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanol blends.

Conversely, states in PADD 2 that want

to adopt a 7.8 psi RVP 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 of listing

separate fuel types for areas that do not

allow a 1.0 psi ethanol waiver is that 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 types by

allowing EPA to approve a state 7.0 psi

RVP fuel even if no other states in the same PADD 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 of 7.0 psi RVP

SIP fuels should be allowed with a 1.0

13 Most SIPs 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 our understanding is that

these SPs do not 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 not they

want to allow a 1.0 psi ethanol waiver. 14

We are not listing RVP programs as

separate fuel types according to whether

or not they allow the 1.0 psi ethanol

waiver. We believe that listing SIP fuels

in this manner would reduce fuel

fungibility and reduce states' flexibility,

which are contrary to Congressional

intent. As explained above, one

consequence of such a listing is that a

state in PADD 1 that wants to adopt a

7.8 psi RVP program into their SIP

could not allow the 1.0 psi ethanol

waiver because there is no RVP program

in a SIP in PADD 1 that allows a 1.0 psi

waiver for ethanol-blended gasoline. We

believe that if a state in PADD 1 adopts

a 7.8 psi fuel program that does not

allow a 1.0 psi waiver for ethanolblended gasoline, refiners would be

required to either not blend 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 psi RVP

standard. If refiners choose to supply a

special blendstock, which meets the 7.8

psi RVP standard when blended with

ethanol, the blendstock would have to

be produced and transported separately

from all other fuels. We believe this

would run counter to EPAct's intention

of promoting fuel fungibility.

Additionally, because the exception

allowed for 7.0 psi RVP fuel programs

makes no mention as to whether new

7.0 psi RVP fuel programs should be

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 of whether or not they

allowed the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver. We

therefore, believe that listing fuel types

solely according 'to RVP limits is most

consistent with Congress's intent to

improve fuel fungibility.

C. Removal of Fuel Types from the List

We are required to remove a fuel from

the published list of fuels if the fuel is

either identical to a federal fuel or is

removed from the SIP into which it is

approved.15 At proposal we explained

14 It is important to note that this discussion of

approval of state 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 ethanol blends,

subject to the provisions for exclusion of the 1.0 psi

waiver adopted in EPAct. Section 211(h)(4), (5).

EPA's interpretation of the section 211(c)(4)(C)

boutique fuels provisions above has no impact on

the federal RVP program adopted under the

provisions of section 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 if that fuel type was either

identical to a federal fuel or removed

from all SIPs with that type of fuel

program. 71 FR 32534. We also

proposed how we would implement the

provision relating to removal of a fuel

from the published list.16 71 FR 32535.

We received two comments on our

proposed implementation of this

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.

In today's notice we are adopting the

fuel type interpretation, and as

proposed we will be removing a fuel

from the list if it is either identical to

a federal fuel or if it is removed from all

SIPs into which it is approved. Our

removal of a fuel type that either ceases

to exist in any SIP or that is identical

to a federal fuel formulation may create

"room" on the list, and subsequently;

subject to the three restrictions

discussed above, we can approve a "new fuel" type into a SIP.

D. Approval of a "New Fuel"

The EPAct provides that before

approving a "new fuel" into a SIP,

where there is room on the list for

additional fuels, we must make a

finding, after consultation with the

DOE, on the impact of the "new fuel"

on fuel supply, distribution, and

produc*ibility. We also addressed the

EPAct use of the term "new fuel", under

the fuel type interpretation. 17 We

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

on the list, however, the PADD

restriction would preclude the approval

of a new fuel type if that fuel type is not

already approved into a SIP in the

applicable PADD.18 At 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 of this provision for the

addition of a "new fuel" to the

"'See 71 FR 32532, 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 RVP programs from

the PADD restriction. While the other EPAct

provisions on boutique fuels do apply to 7.0 psi

RVP programs, 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 response to this

comment can be found in "Section II.

Comment Summary and Response,"

below.

In today's notice, we are adopting the

fuel type interpretation, and as

proposed, we will give meaning to the

term "new fuel" under the limited

circumstances where a state seeks to

adopt a 7.0 psi RVP program. At such

a time, we also-expect to make a finding

on the impact of the "new fuel" on fuel

supply, distribution, and producibility,

after consultation with the DOE.

We also believe that we could give

meaning to the term "new fuel" where

states within PADD 5 seek our approval

to adopt a fuel program that has been

approved into California's SIP. See our

discussion of the PADD restriction,

California Air Resources Board (CARB)

fuels, and states in PADD 5 in Section

I.D. below. We believe that under this

additional limited circumstance, where

states in PADD 5 are seeking to adopt

CARB fuels approved into California's

SIP, and there is room on the list for a

new fuel type, we could give meaning

to the term "new fuel" to include a

CARB fuel program, under the fuel type

interpretation that we are adopting

today. At such a time, we will also make

a finding on the impact of the "new

fuel" on fuel supply, distribution, and

producibility, after consultation with

the DOE.

E. The PADD Restriction

The EPAct constrains our approval of

"any fuel unless that fuel" was already

approved into at least one SIP in the

applicable PADD as of the date of our

consideration of a state's request. 20 At

proposal we explained that for a state

fuel program to be approved into a SIP

in the future, the effect of the PADD

restriction is that the fuel type must

have been approved into a SIP in that

PADD as of the date of our

consideration of a state's request (with

the exception of 7.0 psi RVP

programs).21 We explained in the 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 in existence, and to the

PADDs in which they are currently

found. 22 We also received several

comments on our treatment of CARB

fuels. Our response to these comments

can be found below in section II.B.

In today's notice we are adopting the

fuel type interpretation and finalizing a

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

7545(c)(4)(C)(v)(V).

21 See 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 of fuel 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 of the date of

our consideration of a state's request.

Additionally, because we are allowed to

approve a fuel if it is "approved in at

least one [SIP] in the applicable

[PADDI," we believe that there is a

limited circumstance in PADD 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. If our approval will

not cause an increase in the number of

fuel types above those approved as of

September 1, 2004, i.e., if there is "room

on the 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 of fuels we are

publishing today. Under the PADD

restriction provision, however, we are

only required to approve a fuel if it is

"approved in at least one [SIP] in the

applicable [PADD]." We would,

therefore, not be prohibited from

approving CARB fuels for states within

PADD 5, because CARB fuels are

approved into a SIP in the applicable

PADD. As earlier explained, adoption

and approval of CARB fuels, however,

remains subject to our meeting 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 in their PADD. We

also continue to believe that this

interpretation addresses the "fuel

islands" concerns, while continuing to

preserve an important degree of

flexibility and choice of states in

developing air pollution control

programs.

II. Comment Summary and Response

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:

2 3 CAA section 211(c)(4)(c)(vl(V), 42 U.S.C.

7545(c)(4)(c)(v)(V)

A. Comments on the Fuel Type

Approach versus the State Specific

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 fuel type approach will

implement the intent of the EPAct,

while preserving some choice for states

in meeting the NAAQS.

B. Comments Regarding State Fuel

Programs Not Included on the Draft

State Boutique Fuels List

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

CBG has 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

on the time of year involved."

Response: We agree that Arizona CBG

should be listed as two separate fuel

types. Arizona requires winter CBG to

meet a set of specific standards for RVP,

sulfur, aromatics, olefins, T50, T90 and

oxygen. Arizona, however, allows

summer CBG to either meet the same set

of specific standards (for sulfur,

aromatics, olefins, T50, T90 and

oxygen), or alternatively meet

performance standards for emissions

reductions in VOC and NOx. As

explained in Section 1.A, above,

summer CBG includes specification for

7.0 psi RVP. Thus, because CBG has

components, specifications or limits 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 RVP requirement and nonsummertime CBG. (See Section III,

below, for our list of the fuels approved

into all SIPs as of September 1, 2004).

We have also changed the dates in the

table to reflect compliance dates for

these two fuel types. We believe that the

practical effect of adding a second fuel

type for Arizona CBG is small, although

we note that for states in PADD 5 this

changes one fuel type (CBG) into two

fuel types (summer and non-summer

CBG) for consideration of approval to

their SIPs for purposes of addressing

local air quality issues.

Comment: State RVP programs that do

not provide a 1.0 psi RVP waiver for

ethanol-blended gasoline should be

listed as separate programs. Two state

fuels programs (western Pennsylvania

and El Paso, Texas) do not provide a 1.0

psi RVP waiver for ethanol-blended

gasoline in their RVP fuel programs.

Two commenters stated that these fuel

programs should not be listed as

separate fuel types. Also, one

commenter stated that EPA mhade no

mention of RVP waivers for 10%

ethanol-gasoline blends and, the impact

these may have on the list of fuel 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 in the

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 in the 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 be permitted with

or without the 1.0 psi ethanol waiver,

we do not believe that Congress

intended use of this criteria for listing

fuel types.

Comment: "Historical" 9.0 psi RVP

programs should be on the list. In 1989

we set nationwide RVP standards for

gasoline sold during the summer, in two

phases. Phase I applied to 1990 and

1991, and Phase II applied to 1992 and

later years. Generally, we set the RVP

level at 10.5 psi and 9.0 psi in the

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 of several

northeastern states. Two commenters

supported our decision to not include

these 9.0 psi RVP fuel programs on the

list. However, one commenter suggested

that we should include these programs

on the boutique fuels list and that

failure to include them would not fulfill

24 See 40 CFR 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 and then subsequently

removing the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type

would provide "room" on the list for

the adoption of another state fuel

program for the northeastern states, or

more specifically states in PADD 1.

Response: We do not believe that the

9.0 psi RVP fuel type should be

included on the list. We proposed not

to list the 9.0 psi RVP programs as a way

of reconciling 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 on the total number

of fuels approved into SIPs under

section 211(c)(4)(C) as of 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. We further

explained that reading these provisions

literally would require us to

simultaneously include 9.0 psi RVP on

the list We are publishing today and at

the same time to remove it from the list.

We concluded that although several of

these 9.0 psi RVP programs remain in

the SIPs of some northeastern states,

Congress would not have intended such

an illogical approach, primarily because

the 9.0 psi RVP program could not be

viewed as contributing to the

proliferation of 'fuel islands." 25 We

continue to believe that we should not

list 9.0 psi RVP as a fuel type on the list,

and in today's notice we are not

including 9.0 psi RVP as a fuel type on

the list.

We also do not believe that listing and

then removing the 9.0 psi RVP fuel type

would provide for the adoption of a new

state fuel type for states in PADD 1. As

mentioned previously, the PADD

restriction strongly constrains our future

approval of "boutique fuels" because

states are limited to the types of fuels

already approved into SIPs in their

PADDs, with the exception of the 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 still be limited to

adopting a fuel already in a SIP in their

PADD or a 7.0 psi RVP fuel. Therefore,

we have not included 9.0 psi RVP

programs in the boutique fuels list

published today.

Comment: CARB fuels should be

included on the Boutique Fuels list.

Some commenters indicated that the

CARB reformulated gasoline (RFG), and

diesel programs should be included on

25 See 71 FR 32534 for a more detailed discussion

of our treatment of 9.0 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

of our lack of authority to address CARB

RFG and diesel programs under section

211(c)(4)(C) if we believed we lacked

such authority.

Response: CAA section

211(c)(4)(C)(v)(II) requires us to

determine and publish the "total

number of fuels" approved into all SIPs,

under section 211(c)(4) as of September

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 not believe 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 that under limited

circumstances, such as when there is

room on the list, adoption by a state in

PADD5 of CARB RFG or diesel 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 fuels programs

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 the Nevada program

includes a 9.0 psi RVP cap in winter.

Response: Section 211(c)(4)(C)(v)(II)

requires us to determine the total

number of fuels we have approved into

all SIPs, under section 211(c)(4)(C), as of

September 1, 2004 and publish a list 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 SIPs under section

211(c)(4)(C), but, rather, were approved

under sections 110 and 211(m). Since

the Nevada ethanol requirement is part

of an oxygenated fuels program that we

approved under sections 110 and

211(m), we do not believe it should be

ihcluded on the boutique fuels list we

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

the boutique 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 of fuels we have approved into

all SIPs, under section 211(c)(4)(C); as of

September 1, 2004. We believe this

provision is very specific in referring to

state fuels programs "approved" into

SIPs under section 211(c)(4)(C). Since

the ethanol and biofuel mandates

(including biodiesel) that the

commenters reference were not

approved into a SIP under section

211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004,

they should not be placed on the list.

C. Addition and Removal of a Fuel Type

From the List

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

of the country would be receiving the

same gasoline with regard to sulfur

content. The Atlanta program would

simply be listed as one of the states

using the 7.0 psi RVP fuel type.

Response: As discussed above, we

must remove a fuel from the list when

the fuel type is "identical to a Federal

fuel formulation implemented by the

Administrator.' '26 Considering removal

of the Atlanta program from the list, at

this stage, however, would be

premature.

Comment: One commenter

recommended that EPA clarify the

procedure for adding a fuel to the list.

The commenter inquired as to whether

EPA would approve either a new fuel

2

6 See 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 for use in PADD 1 or one that

could be used in any other PADD

subsequent to removal of a fuel type

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 in PADD

3 could substitute "summer 7.0 psi RVP

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. of the

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 to both the types of fuels

currently in existence, and to the

PADDs in which they are currently

found, with the exception of 7.0 psi RVP

fuel type. We expect that if the "summer

7.0 psi RVP gasoline with sulfur

provisions" fuel type 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 in PADD 3 as of the

date of our consideration of a state's

request to approve a fuel type.

D. Consultation with DOE

Comment: One commenter stated that

EPA's consultations with DOE should

be part of the public record.

Response: We agree with this

comment. We did consult with DOE

Staff as part of the development of the

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 with DOE staff on developing

today's notice and the list it adopts and

we have docketed DOE's concurrence

with this final notice.

E. General Comments

Comment: EPA should explain how

the list will be affected by a request

from a state governor not to allow the

1.0 psi ethanol waiver as permitted by

section 211(h)(5) of EPAct.

Response: As mentioned earlier in the

preamble, our approval of state 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)

of the Clean Air Act allows a 1.0 psi

RVP waiver for gasoline blends

containing 10% ethanol. Section

211(h)(5) also permits the governor of a

state to petition EPA to remove the 1.0

psi RVP waiver if the state provides

documentation that the 1.0 psi ethanol

waiver increases emissions. The EPA's

interpretation of section 211(c)(4)(C)

above, has no impact on such federal

RVP programs.

Comment: EPA should provide a more

nuanced analysis of fuel categories that

considers how fuel properties fall into a

hierarchy of substitutability that affects

supply flexibility, both from a

perspective of vehicle 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 SIP may be supplied as compliant

fuel in any SIP covered area. Evaluating

SIP fuels from a perspective of vehicle

impacts is. outside the scope of today's

Notice.

Comment: EPA approval of state 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 of a

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 not on the boutique fuel

list that we are publishing in today's

notice. Commenters also urged EPA to

include these unique fuel requirements

in the § 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" on the list, EPA

is required to make a finding, after

consultation with the DOE, on the

impact of the "new fuel" on fuel supply,

distribution, and producibility. In

reviewing the supply implications of a "new fuel," EPA agrees that it is

reasonable to consider all fuels in the

area although such fuels are not on the

boutique fuels list. The supply

implications of a "new fuel" can best be

understood by evaluating them in the

context of the other fuel requirements

applicable to fuel distributed in that

area. Therefore, we believe it is

appropriate to consider "unlisted" fuels

such as biofuels or oxygenated gasoline

when determining whether or not a "new fuel" will present supply or

distribution interruptions or will have a

significant adverse impact on fuel

producibility in the affected or

contiguous areas. We also recognize that

including these "unlisted" fuels in the

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

of today's Notice.

IH. Publication of the Boutique Fuel

List

A list of the eight (8) fuel types

approved into SIPs under section

211(c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004, the

states, and the PADD they are used in

is set forth in the following Table.

Please note that this table varies from

the draft table for the fuel type

interpretation published in the 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 IN STATE 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)*

RV P 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 1 through 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 to the

Proposed Adaptation for ClimateSensitive Ecosystems and Resources

Advisory Committee (ACSERAC)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; Request for nominations

to the proposed Adaptation for ClimateSensitive Ecosystems and Resources

Advisory Committee (ACSERAC)..

SUMMARY: As required by section 9(a)(2)

of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,

we are giving notice that EPA is inviting

nominations for membership on the

proposed Adaptation for ClimateSensitive Ecosystems and Resources

Advisory Committee (ACSERAC). The

purpose of this proposed Committee is

to provide advice on the conduct of a

study titled, "Preliminary Review of

Adaptation Options for ClimateSensitive Ecosystems and Resources," to

be conducted as part of the U.S. Climate

Change Science Program (CCSP). This

assessment is part of a comprehensive

set of assessments identified by the

CCSP's Strategic Plan for the Climate

Change Science Program. The proposed

ACSERAC will advise on the specific

issues that should be addressed in the

assessment, appropriate technical

approaches, the type and usefulness of

information to decision makers, the

content of the final assessment report,

compliance with the Information

Quality Act, and other matters

important to the successful achievement

of the objectives of the study. EPA has

determined that this proposed federal

advisory committee is in the public

interest and will assist the Agency in

performing its duties under the Clean

Water Act, Clean Air Act, 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 of the

proposed committee will include a

balanced representation of interested

persons with professional and personal

qualifications and experience to

contribute to the functions of the

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 of the study. Any

interbsted person or organization may

submit a nomination. Nominations

should be identified by name,

occupation, organization, position,

address, and telephone number, and

must include a complete resume of the

nominee's background, experience and

expertise, and any other information

considered relevant. Additional avenues

and resources will be utilized by EPA in

the solicitation of nominees. Copies of

the Committee Charter will be filed with

the appropriate congressional

committees and the Library of Congress.

DATES: Nominations should be received

by January 18, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit nominations to

Joanna Foellmer (8601D), National

Center for Environmental 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 for Environmental 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 of the proposed committee is to

provide advice on the conduct of the

study titled, "Pteliminary Review of

Adaptation Options for ClimateSensitive Ecosystems and Resources," to

be conducted as part of the U.S. Climate

Change Science Program (CCSP). This

study will focus on adaptation to

anticipated impacts of climate change

on federally owned and managed lands

and waters. Within the context of the

assessment's prospectus, the proposed

ACSERAC will advise on the specific

issues to be addressed, appropriate

technical approaches, the type and

usefulness of information to decision

makers, the content of the final

assessment report, compliance with the

Information Quality Act, and other

matters important to the successful

achievement of the objectives of the

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