33196 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 131 / Friday, July 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

State 

Maximum number 

of state home 

nursing home & 

domiciliary beds 

based on 2020 

projections 

Alabama .......................... 1,007 

Alaska ............................. 179 

American Samoa ............ 0 

Arizona ............................ 1,520 

Arkansas ......................... 653 

California ......................... 4,363 

Colorado ......................... 1,114 

Connecticut ..................... 559 

Delaware ......................... 207 

District of Columbia ........ 83 

Florida ............................. 4,049 

Georgia ........................... 1,975 

Guam .............................. 12 

Hawaii ............................. 268 

Idaho ............................... 394 

Illinois .............................. 1,754 

Indiana ............................ 1,216 

Iowa ................................ 578 

Kansas ............................ 518 

Kentucky ......................... 818 

Louisiana ........................ 638 

Maine .............................. 362 

Maryland ......................... 1,102 

Massachusetts ................ 944 

Michigan ......................... 1,786 

Minnesota ....................... 1,058 

Mississippi ...................... 480 

Missouri .......................... 1,257 

Montana .......................... 281 

Nebraska ........................ 371 

Nevada ........................... 649 

New Hampshire .............. 361 

New Jersey ..................... 992 

New Mexico .................... 417 

New York ........................ 2,209 

North Carolina ................ 1,900 

North Dakota .................. 137 

Northern Mariana Islands 1 

Ohio ................................ 2,143 

Oklahoma ....................... 766 

Oregon ............................ 907 

Pennsylvania .................. 2,336 

Puerto Rico ..................... 288 

Rhode Island .................. 157 

South Carolina ................ 1,089 

South Dakota .................. 179 

Tennessee ...................... 1,311 

Texas .............................. 4,119 

Utah ................................ 426 

Vermont .......................... 142 

Virginia ............................ 1,903 

Virgin Islands .................. 12 

Washington ..................... 1,687 

West Virginia .................. 406 

Wisconsin ....................... 1,062 

Wyoming ......................... 154 

Note to § 59.40(a): The provisions of 38 

U.S.C. 8134 require that the ‘‘unmet need’’ 

numbers be based on a 10-year projection of 

demand for nursing home and domiciliary 

care by veterans who at such time are 65 

years of age or older and who reside in that 

State. In determining the projected demand, 

VA must take into account travel distances 

for veterans and their families. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–16341 Filed 7–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0344; FRL–8929–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

California 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

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 establish 

test methods for determining the 

aromatic hydrocarbon content in diesel 

fuel and lower the maximum allowable 

sulfur content for motor vehicle diesel 

fuel. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 10, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2009–0344, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Jeffrey Buss (Air-2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: 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. 

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. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

Regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by this proposed 

action include: 

Category NAICSs 

codes a SIC codes b Examples of potentially regulated parties 

Industry ............................................................................................. 324110 2911 Petroleum refiners. 

Industry ............................................................................................. 422710 5171 Gasoline Marketers and Distributors. 

422720 5172 

a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

bStandard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 131 / Friday, July 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33197 

1See 40 CFR part 80, subparts D, E and F. 

2Section 211(c)(4)(A) prohibits States (and 

political subdivisions of states) from prescribing or 

attempting to enforce controls or prohibitions 

respecting any fuel characteristic or component if 

EPA has prescribed a control or prohibition 

applicable to such fuel characteristic or component 

under section 211(c)(1). This preemption applies to 

all states except California, as explained in section 

211(c)(4)(B). Thus, the SIP approval and boutique 

fuels provisions of 211(c)(4)(C) do not apply here. 

3See 59 FR 7716, 7758 (February 16, 1994) and 

63 FR 34818 (June 26, 1998). The original 

enforcement exemptions expired in 1999 when the 

Federal Phase II RFG started but, after comparing 

CaRFG2 and Federal Phase II RFG, we continued 

those exemptions. 64 FR 49992 (September 15, 

1999). 

4The California Reformulated Gasoline 

regulations, as contained in Title 13 of the 

California Code of Regulations (CCR), sections 2250, 

2252, 2253.4, 2254, 2257, 2260, 2261, 2262.1, 

2262.2, 2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.7, 

2263, 2264, 2266–2272, 2296, and 2297, initially 

approved by CARB on November 17, 1988, and 

formally adopted on August 22, 1989, June 21, 

1990, April 15, 1991, October 15, 1993, and August 

24, 1994. 

5See 55 FR 34120 (August 21, 1990). Specific 

CAA requirements for diesel fuel sulfur content are 

found in section 211(i). On August 21, 1990, EPA 

promulgated regulations pursuant to that section at 

55 FR 34120. EPA subsequently established more 

stringent regulations for diesel sulfur content under 

the authority of section 211(c). See, e.g., the current 

regulations in 40 CFR part 86. 66 FR 5001 (January 

18, 2001). Section 211(c)(4)(A) prohibits states (and 

political subdivisions of states) from prescribing or 

attempting to enforce controls or prohibitions 

respecting any fuel characteristic or component if 

EPA has prescribed a control or prohibition 

applicable to such fuel characteristic or component 

under section 211(c)(1). This preemption applies to 

all states except California, as explained in section 

211(c)(4)(B). Thus, the SIP approval and boutique 

fuels provisions of 211(c)(4)(C) do not apply here. 

6The California Diesel Fuel regulations, as 

contained in 13 CCR 2281 and 2282, adopted on 

August 22, 1989, June 21, 1990, April 15, 1991, 

October 15, 1993, and August 24, 1994. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this proposed action. This 

table lists the types of entities that EPA 

is now aware could be potentially 

regulated by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in the table could also 

be regulated. To determine whether an 

entity is regulated by this proposed 

action, one should carefully examine 

the RFG provisions at 40 CFR part 80. 

If you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this proposed action to 

a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI). In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions—The agency 

may ask you to respond to specific 

questions or organize comments by 

referencing a Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part or section 

number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. California Reformulated Gasoline 

and California Diesel Fuel Programs 

A. What Is the SIP-Approved California 

Program for Reformulated Gasoline? 

Gasoline sold in California is 

generally subject to federal standards 

promulgated by EPA pursuant to section 

211(k) of the CAA.1 The federal 

reformulated gasoline (RFG) program 

has had two phases. Phase I was 

effective from January 1, 1995 to 

December 31, 1999 and Phase II has 

been in effect since January 1, 2000. The 

Federal Phase II program is similar to 

the Phase I program but requires 

additional reductions in emissions of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and toxic air 

pollutants. In addition to the Federal 

standards, gasoline sold in California is 

also subject to standards set by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB).2

The California RFG program consists of 

three phases. California RFG Phase 1 

was replaced by the more stringent 

requirements of California RFG Phase 2 

(CaRFG2), effective March 1, 1996. 

CARB further strengthened its standards 

when it promulgated the California RFG 

Phase 3 (CaRFG3) regulations on August 

3, 2000. 

In 1994, EPA adopted exemptions 

from certain enforcement provisions in 

the Federal RFG regulations for refiners, 

blenders and importers of gasoline sold 

for use in California and subject to 

CaRFG2.3 These exemptions were based 

on a comparison of CaRFG2 with 

Federal RFG Phase I, and later Federal 

RFG Phase II gasoline, and were based 

on the following findings: 

(1) The emissions reductions from the 

CaRFG2 standards would be equal to or 

greater than the applicable Federal 

standards; 

(2) The benzene content of CaRFG2 

would be equivalent in practice to the 

Federal standards (as well as the thenapplicable oxygen content standard in 

Federal RFG areas); and 

(3) CARB’s compliance and 

enforcement program was designed to 

be sufficiently rigorous to ensure that 

Federal requirements would be fulfilled 

in practice. 

We approved the California Phase 1 

and Phase 2 regulation 4 into the SIP on 

August 21, 1995 (60 FR 43379). 

B. What Is the SIP-Approved Program 

for California Diesel Fuel? 

On October 1, 1993, both Federal 5

and California standards for diesel fuel 

took effect. These standards required 

reductions in sulfur particulate and 

NOX emissions from vehicles burning 

diesel fuel. While the programs were 

substantially similar, the California 

program set a more stringent standard 

for aromatic hydrocarbons than the 

Federal program. In addition, the 

California program applied to diesel fuel 

used in on-road applications, like the 

Federal program, but also for nonroad 

diesel vehicles like construction and 

farm equipment. We approved the 

California diesel fuel rules 6 on August 

21, 1995 (60 FR 43379). 

C. What Regulations Did the State 

Submit? 

California Reformulated Gasoline 

On June 15, 2004, the State submitted 

a series of amendments to the 

reformulated gasoline rules found in 13 

CCR 2260–2272 as approved by EPA in 

1995 and referenced in footnote 3. 

Specifically, on August 3, 2000, the 

State adopted amendments that 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
33198 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 131 / Friday, July 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

7See 13 CCR 1956.8(b) and 13 CCR 1961.1(d), 

which include nonsubstantive changes that 

corrected the publication dates of certain 

documents incorporated by reference. 

8See 13 CCR 1961 (Exhaust Emission and Test 

Standards—2004 and Subsequent Model Passenger 

Vehicles, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty 

Vehicles), 13 CCR 2701 (adding the definition of 

‘‘15 ppmw or less sulfur fuel’’), and 17 CCR 93114 

(applying the requirements of 13 CCR 2281, 2282 

and 2284 to nonvehicular diesel fuel except diesel 

fuel solely for use in locomotives and marine 

engines). 

9See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg/ 

whereyoulive.htm for a map and 40 CFR 80.70 for 

a list of covered areas in the State. A copy of the 

map has been placed in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

10See 70 FR 75914. The CaRFG3 regulations and 

related standards that are the subject of EPA’s 

December 21, 2005 enforcement exemption 

represent the May 1, 2003 version of the California 

Reformulated Gasoline Regulations, 13 CCR 2250 et 

seq. 

11 In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Energy Act), 

Congress removed the oxygen content requirement 

for RFG found in Section 211(k) of the CAA. The 

Energy Act made this change immediately effective 

in California, and 270 days after enactment for the 

rest of the country. We published a direct final rule 

to remove the oxygen content requirement for RFG 

for gasoline produced and sold for use in California, 

thereby making the fuels regulations consistent 

with amended Section 211(k)at 71 FR 8965 

(February 22, 2006). 

12CARB’s most recent annual enforcement report 

indicates that fuels inspection and enforcement 

cases are slightly higher now than when we 

approved the State’s compliance and enforcement 

program in 2006. See ‘‘2007 Annual Enforcement 

Report’’ California Air Resources Board, May, 2008. 

established the CaRFG3 standards and 

program, including revisions leading to 

the phase out of methyl tertiary-butyl 

ether (MTBE) as a gasoline oxygenate. 

Starting March 21, 2001, the State 

adopted a series of rulemakings to 

amend 13 CCR 2260–2272 regarding 

certain limits for denatured ethanol 

used in California gasoline and the 

model for ‘‘California reformulated 

blendstock for oxygenate blending’’ or 

‘‘CARBOB.’’ These amendments also 

allowed certain small refiners to offset 

excess emissions from CaRFG3 with 

additional emission reductions from 

lowering the aromatic hydrocarbon 

content of diesel fuel. On May 1, 2003, 

the State adopted amendments to 13 

CCR 2262.6 and 2263 that updated test 

methods used to comply with CaRFG3 

regulations and also delayed the phase 

out of MTBE by one year to avoid 

disrupting the supply of gasoline in 

California. 

On February 3, 2009, the State 

submitted revisions to the reformulated 

gasoline rules found in 13 CCR 2260, 

2262, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.9, 2265 and 

2266.5. These revisions were adopted by 

the State on November 18, 2004. Among 

other things, the revisions updated the 

procedure for evaluating alternative 

specifications for CaRFG3 using the 

California Predictive Model. Also, the 

State submitted new reformulated 

gasoline rules found in 13 CCR 

2260(a)(0.5), (0.7), (6.9), (7.5), (8.5), 

(10.5), (10.7), (19.7), (19.8), (23.5), 

(23.7), (37), (38), 2262.3(d), 2264.2(a)(3), 

(b)(5), and (d), 2265(c)(4), 2265.1, 2265.5 

and 2266(b)(3), (4), and (5); and 

revisions to the existing reformulated 

gasoline rules found in 13 CCR 2261, 

2262, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.9, 2263, 

2263.7, 2264.2, 2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2271 

and 2273. These new rules and 

revisions were adopted by the State on 

August 7, 2008. Among other things 

these rules updated the California 

Predictive Model in the CaRFG3 

regulations to mitigate permeation 

emissions associated with the use of 

ethanol as a fuel additive. 

California Diesel Fuel 

On February 3, 2009, the State 

submitted revisions to the diesel fuel 

rules found in 13 CCR 2281(c), 2282(b), 

2282(c), and 2282(g). These revisions 

were adopted on June 4, 1997. Among 

other things, the revisions establish test 

methods for determining aromatic 

hydrocarbon content in diesel fuel. 

Because Sections 2281 and 2282 are 

incorporated by reference into the 

State’s rules concerning exhaust and 

emission standards and test procedures, 

those rules 7 were amended to 

incorporate the new language as well. 

Also, the State submitted new diesel 

fuel rules found in 13 CCR 2284 and 

2285 and amendments to the diesel fuel 

rules found in 13 CCR 2281 and 2282. 

Because these revisions pertain to rules 

that are incorporated by reference 

elsewhere, those rules were amended to 

reflect the new language in 13 CCR 2281 

and 2282.8 These rule changes, among 

other things, lowered the maximum 

allowable sulfur content for motor 

vehicle diesel fuel and were adopted by 

the State on July 15, 2004. 

III. EPA Evaluation of California 

Reformulated Gasoline and California 

Diesel Fuel SIP Submittals 

A. What Requirements Apply to These 

SIP Submittals? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable. See CAA section 110(a). 

Monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting 

and associated requirements generally 

ensure that the submitted rule can be 

enforced. In addition, section 110(l) of 

the CAA provides that EPA shall not 

approve a SIP revision if it would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act. 

Some of the SIP revisions submitted 

by the State are non-substantive 

editorial or format changes. Some 

substantive changes are considered 

minor. Major substantive changes are 

discussed below. A detailed analysis of 

all revisions can be found in the 

Technical Support Document that 

accompanies this proposed action. 

B. Are These SIP Submittals 

Approvable? 

California Reformulated Gasoline 

(CaRFG3) Regulations and Subsequent 

Amendments 

The applicable Federal requirements 

for reformulated gasoline are found in 

section 211(k) of the CAA. Section 

211(k) directs EPA to set requirements 

for Federal RFG in certain ozone 

nonattainment areas, as well as ‘‘antidumping’’ requirements for the rest of 

the nation. The current requirements for 

Federal RFG include reductions in 

ozone-forming VOCs, NOX, and toxic air 

pollutants from gasoline-powered motor 

vehicles. As stated above, the 

regulations for Federal RFG can be 

found at 40 CFR part 80, subparts D, E 

and F. In California, Federal RFG is 

required in the San Joaquin Valley, Los 

Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento.9

On December 21, 2005, we exempted 

refiners, blenders and importers of 

CaRFG3 from certain enforcement 

provisions in the Federal RFG 

regulations found at 40 CFR 80.81.10 In 

extending the enforcement exemption to 

CaRFG3, we made the following 

determinations: (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 CaFRG3 would be 

equivalent in practice to the Federal 

Phase II RFG standard and that the 

oxygen content standard of 2.0 weight 

percent would be met in Federal RFG 

areas; 11 and (3) that the CARB 

compliance and enforcement program is 

sufficiently rigorous to ensure that 

Federal Phase II RFG requirements 

would be met in practice. 

CARB’s compliance and enforcement 

program has not changed since we made 

the above finding regarding its 

adequacy.12 Therefore we are proposing 

to approve as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a) the CaRFG3 

regulations and subsequent 

amendments to those regulations, 

submitted to us on February 3, 2009, to 

correct errors, allow additional 

compliance options, and update 

recordkeeping requirements. Moreover, 

because the submitted SIP revisions 

strengthen the requirements in the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 131 / Friday, July 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 33199 

13 40 CFR 80.29. See 66 FR 5001 (January 18, 

2001). See also 70 FR 70498 (November 22, 2005) 

and 71 FR 25705 (May 1, 2006). 14See 71 FR 25705 (May 1, 2006). 

15See 40 CFR 80.616. 

approved SIP, EPA has determined that 

approval of these regulations is 

consistent with CAA section 110(l). 

California Diesel Fuel 

As stated above, specific CAA 

requirements for reformulated diesel 

fuel are found in section 211(i) of the 

CAA. Additionally, EPA has 

promulgated diesel fuel regulations, 

known as the ‘‘Highway and Nonroad 

Diesel Rule,’’ pursuant to section 211(c) 

of the Act which improved fuel quality 

by lowering sulfur levels for onroad 

diesel fuel from 500 ppm to 15 ppm 

(‘‘ultra-low sulfur diesel’’), starting June 

1, 2006.13 This improvement allowed 

for the use of new technologies to 

reduce emissions from diesel engines. 

Effective May 31, 2006, as part of 

technical amendments to its Highway 

and Nonroad Diesel Rule,14 EPA 

exempted ‘‘California diesel fuel’’ from 

certain labeling, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.15 The basis 

for this exemption was that California 

diesel was subject to requirements that 

equaled or exceeded the requirements 

for diesel fuel in the Highway and 

Nonroad Diesel Rule. 

California regulations at 13 CCR 2281, 

proposed for approval in this action, 

impose a 15 ppm sulfur content 

standard in diesel fuel as of June 1, 2006 

and this standard applies to diesel fuel 

used in intrastate locomotive and 

marine engines as of January 2007. 

Moreover, the California sulfur standard 

for diesel fuel does not include a 

temporary compliance option for 

highway diesel fuel or the small refiner 

and credit provisions included in the 

Federal program. Consequently, the 

California sulfur content standard for 

diesel fuel exceeds the requirements of 

the Federal ultra-low sulfur diesel 

program at 40 CFR 80.29. 

California requires the use of ASTM 

standard D5186, a Supercritical Fluid 

Chromatography method, to measure 

the aromatic hydrocarbon content of 

diesel fuel. 13 CCR 2282(c). This 

method replaced ASTM D1319 which is 

a column chromatography method 

originally designed for use with 

gasoline. The replacement method, 

D5186, was developed for use with 

diesel fuels and is a more reliable 

measure of aromatic hydrocarbon 

content of diesel fuel. Consequently, 

this test method is an improvement over 

the past SIP-approved test method. 

The State’s compliance and 

enforcement program for diesel fuel is 

part of the fuels inspection program 

reviewed by EPA and found on 

December 21, 2005 to be sufficient to 

ensure that State standards for RFG 

would be met. Because the State’s 

inspection program covers both RFG 

and diesel fuel, we make the same 

determination today for diesel fuel. 

CARB’s compliance and enforcement 

program for its diesel fuel program is 

the same as for California RFG. As 

stated above, we determined that the 

enforcement and compliance program 

for RFG was adequate in connection 

with our extension of our enforcement 

exemption to CaRFG3. Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve the State’s 

revisions and amendments to its diesel 

fuel rules as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a). Moreover, 

because the submitted SIP revisions 

strengthen the approved SIP, EPA has 

determined that approval of these 

regulations is consistent with CAA 

section 110(l). 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Action 

For the reasons discussed above, we 

are proposing to approve as revisions to 

the California SIP the California RFG 

regulations sold or supplied as motor 

vehicle fuel in California as submitted 

on June 15, 2004 and February 3, 2009. 

Additionally, we are proposing approval 

of the revisions to the diesel fuel 

regulations sold or supplied in 

California as submitted on February 3, 

2009. 

V. Administrative Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely proposes 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this action proposes to 

approve pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will 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, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

proposed action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This proposed action 

merely proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Executive Order 12898 

establishes a Federal policy for 

incorporating environmental justice into 

Federal agency actions by directing 

agencies to identify and address, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority and 

low-income populations. Today’s action 

involves proposed approvals of test 

methods for determining the aromatic 

hydrocarbon content in diesel fuel and 

the lowering of the maximum allowable 

sulfur content for motor vehicle diesel 

fuel in California; and corrects errors 

and streamline certain requirements for 

compliance and enforcement of the 

Phase III California RFG and update its 

predictive model to mitigate permeation 

emissions associated with the use of 

ethanol as a fuel additive. It will not 

have disproportionately high and 

adverse effects on any communities in 

the state, including minority and lowincome communities. 

This proposed rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. The 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This proposed 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
33200 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 131 / Friday, July 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental 

relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–16364 Filed 7–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX–0005; FRL–8928– 

7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Revisions to the 1-Hour Ozone Plan for 

the Beaumont/Port Arthur Area: 

Control of Air Pollution From Volatile 

Organic Compounds, Nitrogen 

Compounds, and Reasonably 

Available Control Technology 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

part of two Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA) 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions that were submitted separately 

by the State of Texas on October 15, 

2005. The revisions being proposed 

pertain to volatile organic compound 

(VOC) control requirements for batch 

processing and ship building and ship 

repair, and also to Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) 

requirements, for the Beaumont/Port 

Arthur (BPA) 1-hour ozone serious 

nonattainment area. In today’s action, 

EPA is proposing to approve: The 

State’s changes to the batch process 

rules and the shipbuilding and ship 

repair rules that lower the threshold for 

affected sources of VOC emissions to the 

serious area requirements of 50 tons per 

year (tpy), and the State’s demonstration 

that the BPA area meets RACT 

requirements for sources of VOC and 

NOX emissions for the 1-hour ozone 

standard. These revisions meet statutory 

and regulatory requirements, and are 

consistent with EPA’s guidance. The 

EPA is approving the revisions pursuant 

to section 110 and part D of the Federal 

Clean Air Act (the Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 10, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning 

Section (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 

courier by following the detailed 

instructions in the Addresses section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Belk, Air Planning Section (6PD– 

L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, U.S. EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–2164; fax number 

214–665–7263; e-mail address 

belk.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action, 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives adverse comments, the 

direct final rule will be withdrawn and 

all public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule, which is located in the 

rules section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: June 29, 2009. 

Miguel I. Flores, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. E9–16271 Filed 7–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1