35960 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

introduced onto Wild Horse and Burro

Territories or ranges after December 15,

1971, by accident, negligence, or willful

disregard of private ownership, and

which do not become intermingled with

wild free-roaming horses or burros shall

be considered as unauthorized livestock

and treated in accordance with

provisions in 36 CFR 261.7 and 262.10.

Dated: June 28, 1996.

David G. Unger,

Associate Chief.

[FR Doc. 96–17444 Filed 7–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

36 CFR Part 223

Sale and Disposal of National Forest

System Timber; Subpart E—Federal

Timber Contract Payment Modification

Program

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule; technical

amendment.

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is

amending its regulations on timber sale

contracts to remove the subpart on

Federal timber contract payment

modification program. Originally

required to implement the Federal

Timber Contract Payment Modification

Act of 1984, these regulations were

reviewed during the regulatory reform

phase II initiative of the National

Performance Review and determined to

be obsolete.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 9, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jim Naylor, Timber Management Staff,

Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090,

Washington, D.C. 20090–6090, (202)

205–0858.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Federal Timber Contract Payment

Modification Act of October 16, 1984,

(16 U.S.C. 618) authorized and directed

the Secretaries of Agriculture and the

Interior to release a timber sale

purchaser from specified contractual

obligations thereby returning to the

Government certain timber sale

contracts.

Speculative bidding in the early

1980’s, followed by a substantial drop in

the forest products market, left may

timber purchasers in high risk of

defaulting timber sale contracts and

having to declare bankruptcy.

The Act allowed purchasers of

national forest timber to return to the

Government a certain number of timber

sale contracts upon payment of a ‘‘buyout charge.’’

The final rule to implement the

Federal Timber Contract Payment

Modification Act was published in the

Federal Register on June 27, 1985, at 50

FR 26666. Under this regulation,

purchasers were required to apply for

contract buyout within 90 days of the

published date of the rule. All of the

contracts governed by this regulation are

closed. Also, the emergency rate

redetermination in Alaska rules, which

were part of Subpart E, are no longer

applicable. Therefore, these rules are no

longer needed and by this amendment

are removed from the Code of Federal

Regulations. Because of the narrow

scope and limited effect of this action,

the Agency has determined that this

amendment is a technical amendment

for which notice and comment pursuant

to the Administrative Procedures Act (5

U.S.C. 553) is neither practical nor

necessary.

Regulatory Impact

This rule is a technical amendment to

remove obsolete regulations and, as

such, has no substantive effect nor is it

subject to review under USDA

procedures and Executive Order 12866

on Regulatory Planning and Review.

Accordingly, this rule is not subject to

OMB review under Executive Order

12866.

Moreover, good cause exists to

exempt this rule from notice and

comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 and,

therefore, this rule is exempt from

further analysis under the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995; Executive

Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform;

Executive Order 12630, Takings

Implications; or The Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995.

Environmental Impact

This action falls within a category of

actions excluded from documentation in

an Environmental Impact Statement and

an Environmental Assessment. Section

31.1b of Forest Service Handbook

1909.15 (57 FR 43180; September 18,

1992) excludes from documentation in

an environmental assessment or impact

statement ‘‘rules, regulations, or policies

to establish Service-wide administrative

procedures, program processes, or

instructions.’’ The agency’s assessment

is that this final technical rule falls

within this category of actions and that

no extraordinary circumstances exist

which would require preparation of an

environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 223

Exports, Government contracts,

National forests, Reporting

requirements, and Timber sales.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in

the preamble, Part 223 of Title 36 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is hereby

amended as follows:

PART 223—SALE AND DISPOSAL OF

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM TIMBER

1. The authority citation for part 223

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 90 Stat. 2958, 16 U.S.C. 472a; 98

Stat. 2213, 16 U.S.C. 618; 104 Stat. 714–726,

16 U.S.C. 620–620h, unless otherwise noted.

Subpart E—[Removed and Reserved]

2. Remove and reserve Subpart E

consisting of sections 223.170–223.183.

Dated: June 28, 1996.

David G. Unger,

Associate Chief.

[FR Doc. 96–17443 Filed 7–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL–5532–6]

RIN 2060–AD27

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel

Additives; Standards for Reformulated

Gasoline

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration;

request for comment.

SUMMARY: EPA requests comment on a

petition submitted to EPA by the

American Petroleum Institute (API). The

petition, submitted pursuant to section

553(e) of the Administrative Procedure

Act, requests reconsideration of the

Phase II reformulated gasoline reduction

standard for oxides of nitrogen (NOX).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 9, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may

submit written comments (in triplicate,

if possible) to: EPA Air and Radiation

Docket, Attention Docket No. A–96–27,

room M–1500 (mail code 6102), 401 M

St., SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The

docket may be inspected at this location

from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m.

weekdays. The docket may also be

reached by telephone at (202) 260–7548.

As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a

reasonable fee may be charged by EPA

for photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Debbie Wood, Office of Mobile Sources,

Fuels and Energy Division, (202) 233–

9000.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 35961

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction and Background

On February 16, 1994, EPA published

a final rule establishing emission

reduction and other performance

standards for reformulated gasoline

(RFG), including provisions for the

certification of RFG and enforcement of

RFG standards, and establishing certain

requirements regarding unreformulated

or conventional gasoline (59 FR 7716).

The purpose of the RFG program is to

improve air quality by requiring that

gasoline be reformulated to reduce

emissions from motor vehicles of toxics

and tropospheric ozone-forming

compounds, as specified by section

211(k)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or

the Act). Section 211(k) mandates that

RFG be sold in the nine largest

metropolitan areas with the most severe

summertime ozone levels; RFG must

also be sold in other ozone

nonattainment areas that choose to

participate or ‘‘opt in’’ to the program.

The Act further prohibits conventional

gasoline sold in the rest of the country

from becoming any more polluting than

it was in 1990 by requiring that each

refiner’s and importer’s gasoline be as

clean, on average, as it was in 1990; this

statutory prohibition has resulted in

requirements referred to as the ‘‘antidumping’’ program.

The Act mandates certain

requirements for the RFG program.

Section 211(k)(1) directs EPA to issue

regulations that:

* * * require the greatest reduction in

emissions of ozone forming volatile organic

compounds (during the high ozone season)

and emissions of toxic air pollutants (during

the entire year) achievable through the

reformulation of conventional gasoline,

taking into consideration the cost of

achieving such emission reductions, any

nonair-quality and other air-quality related

health and environmental impacts and

energy requirements.

Section 211(k)(3) specifies the minimum

requirement for reduction of volatile

organic compounds (VOC) and toxics

for 1995 through 1999, or Phase I of the

RFG program; the section specifies that

EPA must require the more stringent of

a formula fuel or an emission reduction

performance standard, measured on a

mass basis, equal to 15 percent of

baseline emissions. Baseline emissions

are the emissions of 1990 model year

technology vehicles operated on a

specified baseline gasoline. Section

211(k)(2) compositional specifications

for RFG include a 2.0 weight percent

oxygen minimum and a 1.0 volume

percent benzene maximum. Section

211(k)(2) also specifies that NOX

emissions may not increase in RFG.

For the year 2000 and beyond, or

Phase II of the RFG program, the Act

specifies that the VOC and toxics

performance standards must be no less

than either a formula fuel or a 25

percent reduction from baseline

emissions, whichever is more stringent.

EPA can adjust these standards upward

or downward taking into account such

factors as feasibility and cost, but in no

case can they be less than 20 percent.

Shortly after passage of the CAA

Amendments in 1990, EPA entered into

a regulatory negotiation with interested

parties to develop specific proposals for

implementing both the RFG and antidumping programs. In August 1991, the

negotiating committee reached

consensus on a program outline,

addressing emission content standards

for Phase I (1995–2000), emission

models, certification, use of averaging

and credits, and other important

program elements.

The regulatory negotiation conducted

by EPA did not, however, address Phase

II VOC and toxics standards, nor did it

address a reduction in NOX emissions

beyond the statutory cap imposed under

section 211(k)(2)(A). The final rule

promulgated by EPA closely followed

the outline agreed to in the negotiated

rulemaking. The final rule also adopted

a NOX reduction performance standard

for Phase II RFG, relying on authority

under section 211(c)(1)(A).

In proposing and promulgating a NOX

reduction standard, EPA analyzed the

costs and benefits, along with other

relevant factors, including EPA’s view

that NOX reductions are important to

achieve attainment of the ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) in many nonattainment areas.

In the final rule, EPA discussed recent

studies which indicate that NOX control

is an effective ozone control strategy for

the northeast as well as the Lake

Michigan area (59 FR 7751). EPA also

noted that there are non-ozone benefits

from NOX control, such as reduced acid

rain and improved visibility (59 FR

7751). In considering the feasibility of

section 202 motor vehicle controls prior

to regulating fuels, EPA cited several

reasons for the promulgation of a NOX

reduction standard (59 FR 7752): (1)

Significant emission reductions would

be achieved right away, in the summer

of 2000, with no delay based on fleet

turnover time. (2) A NOX reduction

standard for gasoline would act to

reduce emissions from all mobile

sources that use gasoline, whether onhighway or nonroad. (3) The fuel

control is specifically aimed at areas of

the country that are in nonattainment

for ozone, and is limited in time to that

part of the year when ozone is of most

concern. (4) The expected increase in

vehicle miles traveled over time leads

EPA to believe that this fuel control is

needed to continue to achieve the in-use

NOX emission reductions necessary for

many areas of the country to reach

attainment for ozone. (5) The

performance standard adopted

minimizes any concern that a fuel

control could interfere in the production

process by directing refiners on how to

make their product.

EPA estimates that the Phase II NOX

emission reduction standard of 6.8

percent on average will reduce

summertime NOX emissions from

gasoline-powered mobile sources by

approximately 22,000 tons annually.

Cost-effectiveness is estimated at $5,000

per ton of NOX reduction.

In December 1995, API submitted a

petition to EPA requesting

reconsideration of the Phase II RFG NOX

standard or, at a minimum, suspension

of the effective date of the standard. API

bases its request for reconsideration on

three arguments: (1) The standard is

inconsistent with the CAA Amendments

of 1990 and the 1991 negotiated

rulemaking. (2) Air quality benefits of

the standard are overstated. (3) The

standard is not a cost-effective strategy

for ozone control. These arguments were

also submitted to EPA by API as

comments during the RFG rulemaking;

the final rule preamble discusses these

arguments and explains EPA’s reasons

for promulgating the NOX reduction

standard (see 59 FR 7716, 7744–7756).

An initial review of the API petition

indicates that it presents no compelling

new evidence or argument that would

warrant revisiting the decision made in

promulgating the Phase II NOX

reduction standard. However, to ensure

that our conclusions on the

appropriateness of the NOX reduction

standard remain well-founded, EPA will

review any relevant and available new

information on costs and benefits that

has been developed since promulgation

of the final rule. EPA solicits comment

on the issues raised in the petition. The

arguments presented in the API petition

are summarized below. A complete

copy of the API petition may be found

in the docket for this notice.

II. Summary of API Petition

A. Consistency With CAA and

Negotiated Rulemaking

API’s first argument is that EPA’s

Phase II RFG NOG5X standard is

inconsistent with the CAA Amendments

of 1990 and the 1991 negotiated

rulemaking. API cites provisions of the

Act that specifically require reductions

in various pollutants, and contrasts that
35962 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

with the ‘‘no NOX increase’’ approach

taken toward RFG in section 211(k). API

also notes that the 1991 negotiated

rulemaking agreement does not address

a Phase II NOX reduction, and that the

focus of debate was whether de minimis

increases in NOX would satisfy the no

NOX increase standard. For discussion

of these arguments in the RFG final rule,

see, for example, 59 FR 7744–7745.

B. Air Quality Benefits

API’s second argument is that the

ozone benefits of the Phase II RFG NOX

standard are overstated. API argues that

the primary basis for the Phase II NOX

standard is ozone attainment, and cites

data from EPA’s Trends Report (U.S.

EPA, National Air Quality and

Emissions Trends Report 1993, EPA

454/R–94–026, October 1994 at 6.) that

progress toward ozone attainment has

been made. API also notes that the Act

imposes substantial obligations on states

to attain ozone standards.

API claims that in promulgating the

Phase II RFG NOX standard, EPA

emphasized those parts of studies (such

as Rethinking the Ozone Problem in

Urban and Regional Air Pollution,

National Research Council, National

Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1991)

that showed NOX to be an effective

ozone control strategy, while

discounting those which indicate that

NOX control can be counterproductive.

API discusses EPA’s authority under

CAA section 182 to grant waivers from

certain CAA local NOX reduction

requirements. The petition states that

the section 182(f) waiver requirement

recognizes that local NOX reductions

may not be necessary or helpful to

attainment of the ozone standard.

Although the overwhelming majority of

section 182(f) waivers have been granted

because additional NOX reductions are

not needed for attainment of the ozone

NAAQS, the petition notes that, in a few

cases, photochemical modeling has

indicated that increased NOX reductions

may exacerbate peak ozone in an urban

core. The petition cites three cases

where modeling has shown that

increased NOX reductions may

exacerbate peak ozone concentrations:

Chicago, Milwaukee, and Houston, three

of the nine cities required to use RFG.

API notes the conditional nature of

section 182(f) waivers.

API argues that given continued

progress toward ozone NAAQS

attainment, imposition of Phase II NOX

reductions applicable in all RFG areas is

‘‘plainly incongruous’’ with the granting

of waivers under section 182(f). API also

argues that EPA’s claim that air quality

benefits in addition to reduced ozone

will result from the Phase II NOX

standard (e.g., less acid rain, reduced

nitrate deposition, and improved

visibility), is speculative. These

arguments are discussed in the RFG

final rule at, for example, 59 FR 7746

and 7751.

C. Cost-effectiveness

API argues that EPA has understated

the impact of the Phase II NOX

reduction standard on costs and refiner

flexibility. API claims that if more

accurate sulfur removal

(‘‘desulfurization’’) costs were

employed, EPA’s cost per ton of NOX

removed would increase to over

$10,000. Moreover, API argues that

EPA’s cost effectiveness analysis does

not take into account that NOX

reductions in some areas do not

contribute to ozone attainment; API

claims that if the benefit of NOX

reductions in Chicago, Milwaukee and

Houston, which have been granted

conditional section 182(f) waivers, is

reduced to zero or less, EPA’s costeffectiveness estimate would rise from

$5,000 to $7,500 per ton.

API also argues that EPA should have

included a more extensive array of

stationary source NOX control measures

that compare favorably to EPA’s costeffectiveness estimate, particularly if

that estimate is changed in light of API’s

arguments on desulfurization costs and

reduced ozone benefits.

Finally, API argues that major

stationary sources offer more potential

for overall reduction in air pollution,

and that the cost-effectiveness of Phase

II NOX controls is higher than stationary

combustion sources with lower

potential for overall NOX reduction. API

argues that, unlike mobile source

control, major stationary source control

can be targeted to avoid the cost of NOX

control where it is not needed and any

adverse effect on ozone because of

atmospheric chemistry. API’s arguments

are discussed in the RFG final rule at,

for example, 59 FR 7752–7754.

III. Request for Comment

EPA requests comment on all the

issues raised in API’s petition for

reconsideration. EPA is also interested

in the potential impact of a delay in

implementation or elimination of the

Phase II RFG NOX standard on state

implementation plans for attaining

compliance with the ozone NAAQS.

EPA solicits new information on costs

and air quality benefits associated with

the Phase II RFG NOX reduction

standard, including non-ozone air

quality benefits.

IV. Conclusion

After considering all public comments

and any other relevant information

available to EPA, the agency will make

a decision regarding API’s petition for

reconsideration.

Dated: June 28, 1996.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 96–17318 Filed 7–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5533–1]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Contingency Plan;

National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Deletion of the Carter

Lee Lumber Company Superfund Site

from the National Priorities List (NPL).

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of

the Carter Lee Lumber Company Site in

Indiana from the National Priorities List

(NPL). The NPL is Appendix B of 40

CFR Part 300 which is the National Oil

and Hazardous Substances Contingency

Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to Section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended.

This action is being taken by EPA and

the State of Indiana, because it has been

determined that Responsible Parties

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required. Moreover,

EPA and the State of Indiana have

determined that remedial actions

conducted at the site to date remain

protective of public health, welfare, and

the environment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 9, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Orr at (312) 886–7576 (SR–6J),

Remedial Project Manager, Superfund

Division, U.S. EPA—Region V, 77 West

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.

Information on the site is available at

the local information repository located

at: Hawthorn Community Center, 2440

West Ohio Street, Indianapolis, IN and

the offices of the Indiana Department of

Environmental management, 100 N.

Senate Avenue, N1255, Indianapolis,

IN. Requests for comprehensive copies

of documents should be directed

formally to the Regional Docket Office.

The contact for the Regional Docket

Office is Jan Pfundheller (H–7J), U.S.