26650 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule 

establishes temporary safety zones to 

protect the public from dangers 

associated with fireworks displays. 

An environmental analysis checklist 

and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbor, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR Part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 

■ 2. Add § 165.T13–140 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T13–140 Safety Zones; May 

Fireworks displays within the Captain of the 

Port Puget Sound Area of Responsibility 

(AOR) 

(a) Safety Zones. The following areas 

are designated safety zones: 

(1) Viking Fest, Liberty Bay, WA 

(i) Location. Liberty Bay, WA 

extending out to a 1000 foot radius from 

the launch site at 47°43′55′′ N 

122°39′08′′ W. 

(ii) Enforcement. 6:30 p.m. until 11:30 

p.m. on May 14, 2010. 

(2) Private Party, North of 

Meadowpoint in Central Puget Sound, 

WA 

(i) Location. Two miles north of 

Meadowpoint in Central Puget Sound, 

WA extending out to 1500 foot radius 

from the launch site at 47°43′42′′ N 

122°24′26′′ W. 

(i) Enforcement. 8:30 p.m. until 11 

p.m. on May 22, 2010. 

(b) Regulations. In accordance with 

the general regulations in 33 CFR Part 

165, Subpart C, no vessel operator may 

enter, transit, moor, or anchor within 

these safety zones, except for vessels 

authorized by the Captain of the Port or 

Designated Representative. 

(c) Authorization. All vessel operators 

who desire to enter these safety zones 

must obtain permission from the 

Captain of the Port or Designated 

Representative by contacting either the 

on-scene patrol craft on VHF Ch 13 or 

Ch 16 or the Coast Guard Sector Seattle 

Joint Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) 

via telephone at 206–217–6002. 

(d) Effective Period. This rule is 

effective from 12:01 a.m. May 14, 2010 

through 11:59 p.m. May 23, 2010 unless 

canceled sooner by the Captain of the 

Port. 

Dated: April 15, 2010. 

S.W. Bornemann, 

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

Port, Puget Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11300 Filed 5–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0129] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zones; Annual Events 

Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain 

of the Port Lake Michigan Zone 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending 

the regulations establishing permanent 

safety zones in the Captain of the Port 

Lake Michigan zone during annual 

events. When these safety zones are 

activated, and thus subject to 

enforcement, this rule would restrict 

vessels from portions of water areas 

during annual events that pose a hazard 

to public safety. The safety zones 

established by this rule are necessary to 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 26651 

protect spectators, participants, and 

vessels from the hazards associated with 

fireworks displays, boat races, and other 

events. 

DATES: This rule is effective June 11, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, are part of 

docket USCG–2010–0129 and are 

available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This material is 

also available for inspection or copying 

at two locations: The Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays and the U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 2420 

South Lincoln Memorial Drive, 

Milwaukee, WI 53207, between 8 a.m. 

and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call 

BM1 Adam Kraft, Prevention 

Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake 

Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747– 

7154 or e-mail him at 

Adam.D.Kraft@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

On March 23, 2010, we published a 

notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) 

entitled Safety Zones; Annual Events 

requiring safety zones in the Captain of 

the Port Lake Michigan zone, in the 

Federal Register (75 FR 13707). We 

received 0 letters commenting on the 

proposed rule. No public meeting was 

requested, and none was held. 

Basis and Purpose 

This rule amends the regulations 

found in 33 CFR 165.929, Annual 

Events requiring safety zones in the 

Captain of the Port, Sector Lake 

Michigan’s zone. This rule revises the 

location of three safety zones to reflect 

the correct enforcement areas, and add 

two new reoccurring events that require 

safety zones. These safety zones are 

necessary to protect vessels and people 

from the hazards associated with 

firework displays, boat races, and other 

events. Such hazards include 

obstructions to the waterway that may 

cause marine casualties and the 

explosive danger of fireworks and debris 

falling into the water that may cause 

death or serious bodily harm. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

No comments were received regarding 

this rule. 

Regulatory Analysis 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed this rule under 

that Order. 

The Coast Guard’s enforcement of 

these safety zones will be periodic in 

nature, of short duration, and designed 

to minimize the impact on navigable 

waters. These safety zones will only be 

enforced immediately before and during 

the time the events are occurring. 

Furthermore, these safety zones have 

been designed to allow vessels to transit 

unrestricted to portions of the 

waterways not affected by the safety 

zones. The Coast Guard expects 

insignificant adverse impact to mariners 

from the changes and addition of these 

safety zones. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This rule would affect the following 

entities, some of which might be small 

entities: The owners of operators of 

vessels intending to transit or anchor in 

the areas designated as safety zones 

during the dates and times the safety 

zones are being enforced. 

These safety zones will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons. The rule will be 

in effect for short periods of time and is 

designed to allow traffic to pass safely 

around the zone whenever possible; and 

allows vessels to pass through the zone 

with the permission of the Captain of 

the Port, Sector Lake Michigan. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

in the NPRM we offered to assist small 

entities in understanding the rule so 

that they could better evaluate its effects 

on them and participate in the 

rulemaking process. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this rule under that Order and have 

determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule will not result in such 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

26652 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Directive 023–01, which guides the 

Coast Guard in complying with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), 

and have concluded this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. Therefore, this rule is 

categorically excluded, under figure 

2–1, paragraph 34 (g) of the Instruction. 

This rule amends permanent safety 

zones established in the Captain of the 

Port Lake Michigan Zone to protect the 

public from the hazards associated 

during annual events. 

A final environmental analysis check 

list and a final categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Amend § 165.929 to revise 

(a)(15)(i), (a)(52)(i), and (a)(65)(i); and to 

add paragraphs (a)(82) and (a)(83) to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.929 Safety Zones; Annual events 

requiring safety zones in the Captain of the 

Port Lake Michigan zone. 

(a) * * * 

(15) Taste of Chicago Fireworks; 

Chicago IL. 

(i) Location. All waters of Monroe 

Harbor and all waters of Lake Michigan 

bounded by a line drawn from 41°53′24′′ 

N, 087°35′59′′ W; then east to 41°53′15′′ 

N, 087°35′26′′ W; then south to 

41°52′49′′ N, 087°35′26′′ W; then 

southwest to 41°52′27′′ N, 087°36′37′′ W; 

then north to 41°53′15′′ N, 087°36′33′′ 

W; then east returning to the point of 

origin. (NAD 83) 

* * * * * 

(52) Gary Air and Water Show; Gary, 

IN. 

(i) Location. All waters of Lake 

Michigan bounded by a line drawn from 

41°37′42′′ N, 087°16′38′′ W; then east to 

41°37′54′′ N, 087°14′00′′ W; then south 

to 41°37′30′′ N, 087°13′56′′ W; then west 

to 41°37′17′′ N, 087°16′36′′ W; then 

north returning to the point of origin. 

(NAD 83) 

* * * * * 

(65) Venetian Night Fireworks; 

Chicago, IL. 

(i) Location. All waters of Monroe 

Harbor and all waters of Lake Michigan 

bounded by a line drawn from 41°53′03′′ 

N, 087°36′36′′ W; then east to 41°53′03′′ 

N, 087°36′21′′ W; then south to 

41°52′27′′ N, 087°36′21′′ W; then west to 

41°52′27′′ N, 087°36′37′′ W; then north 

returning to the point of origin. (NAD 

83) 

* * * * * 

(82) Cochrane Cup; Blue Island, IL. 

(i) Location. All waters of the Calumet 

Sag Channel from the South Halstead 

Street Bridge at 41°39′27′′ N, 087°38′29′′ 

W; to the Crawford Avenue Bridge at 

41°39′05′′ N, 087°43′08′′ W; and the 

Little Calumet River from the Ashland 

Avenue Bridge at 41°39′7′′ N, 087°39′38′′ 

W; to the junction of the Calumet Sag 

Channel at 41°39′23′′ N, 087°39′ W 

(NAD 83). 

(ii) Enforcement date and time. The 

first Saturday of May; 6:30 a.m. to 5 

p.m. 

(83) World War II Beach Invasion Reenactment; St. Joseph, MI. 

(i) Location. All waters of Lake 

Michigan in the vicinity of Tiscornia 

Park in St. Joseph, MI beginning at 

42°06.55 N, 086°29.23 W; then west/ 

northwest along the north breakwater to 

42°06.59 N, 086°29.41 W; the northwest 

100 yards to 42°07.01 N, 086°29.44 W; 

then northeast 2,243 yards to 42°07.50 

N, 086°28.43 W; the southeast to the 

shoreline at 42°07.39 N, 086°28.27 W; 

then southwest along the shoreline to 

the point of origin (NAD 83). 

(ii) Enforcement date and time. The 

third Saturday of June; 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. 

* * * * * 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

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