• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
20927
Federal Register
/Vol. 66, No. 81/Thursday, April 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations
this final rule will not have a significanteconomic impact on substantial numberof small entities.This rule will affect the followingentities, some of which may be smallentities: fishing vessels and constructionvessels transiting the Kennebec Riverfrom 7 a.m. April 4, 2001 to 12 p.m. June 16, 2001. sThis safety zone will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities forthe following reasons: This rule willonly be in effect for approximately 73days, is limited in duration and area,and will be advertised in advance.
Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the SmallBusiness Regulatory EnforcementFairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104
–
121), we offer to assist small entities inunderstanding the rule so that they may better evaluate its effects on them andparticipate in the rulemaking process.Small businesses may send commentson the actions of Federal employeeswho enforce, or otherwise determinecompliance with, Federal regulations tothe Small Business and AgricultureRegulatory Enforcement Ombudsmanand the Regional Small BusinessRegulatory Fairness Boards. TheOmbudsman evaluates these actionsannually and rates each agency
’
sresponsiveness to small business. If youwish to comment on actions byemployees of the Coast Guard, call 1
–
888
–
REG
–
FAIR (1
–
888
–
734
–
3247).
Collection of Information
This rule contains no collection of information requirements under thePaperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.3501
et seq.
).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed thisrule under the principles and criteriacontained in Executive Order 113132and have determined that this rule doesnot have sufficient federalismimplications for Federalism under thatorder.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Actof 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531
–
1538) governsthe issuance of Federal regulations thatrequire unfunded mandates. AnUnfunded Mandate is a regulation thatrequires a state, local or tribalgovernment or the private sector toincur costs without the Federalgovernment
’
s having first provided thefunds to pay those costs. This rule willnot impose an Unfunded Mandate.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise havetaking implications under ExecutiveOrder 12630, Governmental Actions andInterference with ConstitutionallyProtected Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standardsin section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of ExecutiveOrder 12988, Civil Justice Reform, tominimize litigation, eliminate ambiguityand reduce burden.
Protection of Children
The Coast Guard has analyzed thisrule under Executive Order 13045,Protection of Children fromEnvironmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks. This rule is not an economicallysignificant rule and does not concern anenvironmental risk to health or risk tosafety that may disproportionately affectchildren.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribalimplications under Executive Order13175, Consultation and Coordinationwith Indian Tribal Governments. A rulewith tribal implications has asubstantial direct effect on one or moreIndian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government andIndian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between theFederal Government and Indian tribes.
Environment
The Coast Guard has considered theenvironmental impact of this regulationand concluded that, under Figure 2
–
1,paragraph 34(g) of CommandantInstruction M16475.1C, this rule iscategorically excluded from furtherenvironmental documentation. ACategorical Exclusion Determinationand an Environmental AnalysisChecklist is available in the docket forinspection or copying.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation(water), Reporting and record keepingrequirements, Security measures,Waterways.
Regulation
For the reasons set out in thepreamble, the Coast Guard amends 33CFR part 165 as follows:1. The authority citation for part 165continues to read as follows:
Authority:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;33 CFR 1.05
–
1(g), 6.04
–
1, 6.04
–
6 and 160.5;49 CFR 1.46.
2. Add temporary section, 165.T01
–
047 to read as follows:
§
165.T01
 –
047Naval Force Protection,Bath Iron Works, Bath, ME.
(a) Location. The following is a safetyzone: all waters in a 400-foot radiusaround Bath Iron Works, Bath, ME.(b) Effective date. 7 a.m. April 4, 2001to 12 p.m. June 16, 2001.(c) Regulations. (1) The generalregulations contained in
§
165.23 andthe regulations specifically relating tosafety zones in
§
165.20 of this partapply.(2) All persons and vessels shallcomply with the instructions of theCoast Guard Captain of the Port or thedesignated on scene patrol personnel.Upon being hailed by designatedpersonnel via siren, radio, flashing light, bull horn, or other means, the operatorof the vessel and other persons insidethe safety zone shall proceed asdirected.(3) Entry or movement within thiszone is prohibited unless authorized bythe Captain of the Port, Portland, ME.
Dated: April 4, 2001.
Roy A. Nash,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port.
[FR Doc. 01
–
10420 Filed 4
–
25
–
01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910
 –
15
 –
U
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY40 CFR Part 52
[TX
 –
114
 –
2
 –
7494; FRL
 –
6969
 –
4]
Approval and Promulgation of AirQuality State Implementation Plans(SIP); Texas: Control of GasolineVolatility
AGENCY
:
Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).
ACTION
:
Final rule.
SUMMARY
:
The EPA is approving a StateImplementation Plan (SIP) revisionsubmitted by the State of Texasestablishing a low-Reid Vapor Pressure(RVP) fuel requirement for gasolinedistributed in 95 counties in the easternand central parts of Texas. Texasdeveloped this fuel requirement toreduce emissions of volatile organiccompounds (VOCs) as part of the State
’
sstrategy to achieve the NationalAmbient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)for ozone in the Houston-Galveston andDallas-Fort Worth nonattainment areas.We are approving Texas
’
fuelrequirement into the SIP because wefound that the fuel requirement is inaccordance with the requirements of theClean Air Act (the Act) as amended in1990 and is necessary for these
VerDate 11<MAY>200015:38 Apr 25, 2001Jkt 194001PO 00000Frm 00029Fmt 4700Sfmt 4700E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGMpfrm01PsN: 26APR1
 
20928
Federal Register
/Vol. 66, No. 81/Thursday, April 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations
nonattainment areas to achieve theozone NAAQS.
DATES
:
This final rule is effective onMay 29, 2001.
ADDRESSES
:
Copies of the documentsrelevant to this action are available forpublic inspection during normal business hours at the followinglocations. Persons interested inexamining these documents shouldmake an appointment with theappropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day.Environmental Protection Agency,Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD
–
L),1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,Texas 75202
–
2733.Texas Natural Resource ConservationCommission, 12100 Park 35 Circle,Austin, Texas 78753.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Ms.Sandra G. Rennie, Air Planning Section(6PD
–
L), EPA Region 6, 1445 RossAvenue, Dallas, Texas 75202
–
2733,telephone (214) 665
–
7367.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
Throughout this document
‘‘
we,
’’
 
‘‘
us,
’’
and
‘‘
our
’’
means EPA.
What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
We are granting final approval of Texas
’
low RVP fuel requirement forgasoline distributed in 95 counties inthe eastern and central parts of Texas.The State
’
s low-RVP program will onlyapply in the attainment counties listedin this action and will not apply in thedesignated nonattainment counties inthe Houston-Galveston (HGA), Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW), or Beaumont-PortArthur (BPA) ozone nonattainmentareas because these areas are alreadysubject to Federal fuel controls that areat least as stringent.
What Are the Clean Air ActRequirements?
Section 172 of the Act provides thegeneral requirements for nonattainmentplans. Section 172(c)(6) and section 110require SIPs to include enforceableemission limitations, and such othercontrol measures, means or techniquesas well as schedules and timetables forcompliance, as may be necessary toprovide for attainment by the applicableattainment date. Today
’
s SIP revisioninvolves approval of one of a collectionof controls adopted by the State toachieve the ozone standard in the DFWand HGA nonattainment areas asrequired under section 172. EPAapproval of this SIP revision is governed by section 110 of the Act.In addition to these generalrequirements, section 211(c)(4)(C)provides that a state fuel control,otherwise preempted under section211(c)(4)(A), may only be approved intoa SIP if EPA finds the fuel control is
‘‘
necessary
’’
to achieve a NAAQS.Today
’
s approval of the State
’
s fuelcontrol also meets the requirements of section 211(c)(4)(C) because we havefound that the control is
‘‘
necessary
’’
toachieve the NAAQS in the DFW andHGA ozone nonattainment areas.
Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
We are taking this action because theState submitted an adequatedemonstration to show the necessity forthis fuel requirement to achieve theNAAQS in the DFW and HGA ozonenonattainment areas.
What Does the State
’
s Low-RVPRegulation Include?
The State
’
s low-RVP regulationrequires that gasoline sold within the 95attainment counties listed in theregulations have a maximum RVP of 7.8psi. The regulations apply to gasolinesold at gasoline dispensing facilities between June 1 and October 1 of eachyear, and between May 1 and October 1of each year for bulk plants, gasolineterminals and gasoline storage vessels.The 95 central and eastern Texascounties affected by these rules areAnderson, Angelina, Aransas, Atascosa,Austin, Bastrop, Bee, Bell, Bexar,Bosque, Bowie, Brazos, Burleson,Caldwell, Calhoun, Camp, Cass,Cherokee, Colorado, Comal, Cooke,Coryell, De Witt, Delta, Ellis, Falls,Fannin, Fayette, Franklin, Freestone,Goliad, Gonzales, Grayson, Gregg,Grimes, Guadalupe, Harrison, Hays,Henderson, Hill, Hood, Hopkins,Houston, Hunt, Jackson, Jasper, Johnson, Karnes, Kaufman, Lamar,Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Limestone, Live Oak,Madison, Marion, Matagorda,McLennan, Milam, Morris,Nacogdoches, Navarro, Newton, Nueces,Panola, Parker, Polk, Rains, Red River,Refugio, Robertson, Rockwall, Rusk,Sabine, San Jacinto, San Patricio, SanAugustine, Shelby, Smith, Somervell,Titus, Travis, Trinity, Tyler, Upshur,Van Zandt, Victoria, Walker,Washington, Wharton, Williamson,Wilson, Wise, and Wood Counties.
What Did the State Submit?
The State submitted SIP revisions for30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC)114 on August 16, 1999, and April 25,2000, as well as technical supplementsdated October 13, 1999, and February11, 2000. The submittals contained dataand analyses to support a finding undersection 211(c)(4)(C) that the State
’
s low-RVP requirement is necessary for theDFW and HGA nonattainment areas toachieve the ozone NAAQS. For furtherdiscussion of the submittal, see theproposed approval, 65 FR 69720(November 20, 2000) and accompanyingTechnical Support Document.
What Comments Did EPA Receive inResponse to the November 20, 2000,Proposed Rule?
EPA received comments on the Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) from theTexas Oil and Gas Association (TxOGA)and Southwest Research Institute. Asummary of the comments received andEPA
’
s response is presented below.
A. State Regulation of Fuels OutsideNonattainment AreasComment:
TXOGA supports the use of cleaner burning fuel, but opposes theregional regulation of gasoline in areasoutside of designated nonattainmentareas because they do not believe thatregulation of gasoline in attainmentareas has been demonstrated to benecessary for NAAQS attainment in theHGA or DFW areas.
Response:
We believe it is reasonableto justify fuel controls in attainmentareas as
‘‘
necessary to achieve theNAAQS
’’
where, as here, it isdemonstrated that emissions reductionsassociated with fuel use in thesurrounding attainment areas benefit thenonattainment areas of concern andthere are no reasonable or practicablenon-fuel alternatives that would bringabout timely attainment. Regionalapproaches to reducing pollution areacceptable to EPA because air pollutiondoes not recognize political orgeographic boundaries.In our Technical Support Document(TSD) accompanying the proposedapproval, we explained the way inwhich the low-RVP program will helpthe nonattainment areas achieve theNAAQS (more detailed discussions of how the regional fuel benefits thenonattainment areas are provided in theresponses to comments below). Second,we reviewed the reasonableness andpracticability of non-fuel controlalternatives. Finally, we showed thatwith implementation of all reasonableand practicable control measuresincluding the regional fuel control, theHGA and DFW nonattainment areas will be able to attain the ozone NAAQS butwith no margin for error.
B. Transport of Emissions and Emissions From Commuting VehiclesComment:
TXOGA points out thatcontrols in areas downwind of thenonattainment areas do not benefit DFWor HGA. TXOGA also notes a recentmodeling study showed Corpus Christidoes not affect HGA and asserts that
VerDate 11<MAY>200015:38 Apr 25, 2001Jkt 194001PO 00000Frm 00030Fmt 4700Sfmt 4700E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGMpfrm01PsN: 26APR1
 
20929
Federal Register
/Vol. 66, No. 81/Thursday, April 26, 2001/Rules and Regulations
other areas in North Texas claim similarlack of influence on the DFW area.
Response:
The TSD presents specificmodeling data identifying thosecounties from which NO
X
and ozone aretransported to the DFW and/or HGAnonattainment areas. TXOGA does notdispute these modeling results orprovide reason not to rely on this data.The models show that at least 82 of the95 counties subject to the regional low-RVP control have some meteorologicalconnection with the DFW and HGAnonattainment areas such that it isreasonable to conclude that emissionsreduction in these counties will benefitthe DFW and HGA areas. TxOGA
’
sspecific examples do not undermine ouroverall conclusion that many areastransport ozone and/or VOCs and thatreduction of emissions in these areaswill benefit nonattainment areas.
Comment:
TXOGA argues that theevaporative benefits from controllingRVP used in newer vehicles are small because new vehicle standards alreadyresult in evaporative emissions controls.In addition, TXOGA argues that the benefit attributed to vehicles fueling-upin the attainment areas and commutinginto the nonattainment areas is small because the large geographic area haslittle commuting and people more oftenpurchase gas in cities and go tosurrounding areas than vice-versa.
Response:
TXOGA
’
s claims that the benefits associated with commutingvehicles are small, are unsupported, anddo not undermine the overallconclusion that controls in thesesurrounding areas are reasonably relatedto attainment in the DFW and HGAareas. It should be noted, at the outset,that TXOGA does not question themodeled benefits of the low-RVPprogram. Its claims regarding the benefits associated with commutingvehicles therefore are taken only as achallenge to EPA
’
s justification forapproving of the fuel control insurrounding attainment areas.The State provided data oncommuting for counties surroundingDFW and HGA areas. This showedwhere potential impacts fromcommuting are most significant. Forexample, in the DFW area, 17 of the 22attainment counties immediatelysurrounding the nonattainment countieshave 10 percent or more of their countywork trips being made into thenonattainment counties. These numberssupport EPA
’
s conclusion thatcontrolling the fuel in these areas will benefit the DFW and HGAnonattainment areas.TXOGA has provided no basis tosupport its assertion that commutingvehicles are more likely to refuel in thecities than in the areas in which thecommuters live. It is equally asreasonable to expect that, given priceand convenience factors, commuters areat least as likely to refuel in thesurrounding attainment areas as they arein the nonattainment areas.In addition, we note that even thoughthe benefits of a low-RVP fuel are not assignificant in newer vehicles, there isstill a benefit from controlling RVPacross the fleet as a whole. EPA
’
sestimates of nationwide vehicle fleet agedistribution indicate that more than half of the existing light duty vehicle fleet iseight years or older. Additionally, theseestimates show that the light duty fleetincludes a significant percentage of trucks (about 40%) which are currentlysubject to less stringent emissionstandards than passenger cars.Therefore, it is still reasonable toconclude that the low-RVP control will benefit the nonattainment areas, notonly through transport of emissions butalso through reduction in directemissions.
C. DistributionComment:
TXOGA argues thatapproval of the regional fuel programcannot be justified based on distributionissues because distribution within thegeographic area has nothing to do withair quality. TXOGA supports as broad afuel program as possible including anational program but argues that evenwith the regional plan there will be apatchwork because pipelines supply both sides of the program boundary.
Response:
We looked at distributionto support the conclusion that the scopeof the program is reasonable eventhough not all of the 95 countiescovered by the rule contribute to airquality in DFW and HGA. The analysisshows that at least 82 of these 95counties contribute emissions to theDFW and/or HGA nonattainment areasthrough either meteorologic transport orvia commuting vehicles, or both. Fuelcontrols are therefore justified in thesecounties. We concluded that extendingthe low-RVP program to the remaining13 counties was reasonable to simplifydistribution and compliance. EPA hasused similar considerations inapproving other regional fuel controls.See 54 FR 26030 (June 21, 1989)(approving low-RVP program in NewYork); 55 FR 20601 (May 18, 1990)(approving low-RVP program in Maine).We believe that the broader program ismore reasonable than limiting the scopeof the program to only those areasdemonstrated to impact DFW and HGAair quality, which would result in acounty-by-county patchwork.
D. Necessity Comment:
TxOGA also challengesEPA
’
s analysis of the availability of non-fuel alternatives. TxOGA argues that because the emission reduction benefitwas not quantified in terms of actualVOC reductions, EPA cannot supportthe conclusion that the Regional Low-RVP fuel program is the most reasonableand practicable measure to reduce background ozone levels and curtailtransport of ozone and precursors in thenonattainment areas. They argue thatwithout quantifying the VOC reductionsattributable to the use of low-RVP fuelin each county, it is not possible todetermine the cost-effectiveness of therule in each attainment county andimpossible to determine if morereasonable and practicable measures areavailable.
Response:
Texas considered over 300measures within the nonattainmentareas and submitted a long list of non-fuel measures that it considered forimplementation outside thenonattainment areas. All reasonable andpracticable measures have been adoptedand the reasons for rejecting the othershave been provided. TxOGA has notpointed to any particular alternativecontrol measure that EPA or the Stateimproperly rejected as unreasonable orimpracticable. Instead, TXOGA arguesgenerally that the analysis of alternatives was incomplete. We believethe analysis of alternatives wasthorough and appropriate even withoutstrict comparison of cost-effectiveness.We disagree that a reasonable analysisof alternatives must be based on acounty-by-county comparison of thecost-effectiveness of the fuel programand the cost-effectiveness of othercontrols. First, the county-by-countyapproach TXOGA suggests is itself unreasonable to the extent it impliesthat the State must mix and matchregulations at the county level to ensurethat the most cost-effective controls areused in each county. Such a regulatoryapproach could not realistically beimplemented and has never beenrequired.Second, we disagree with TXOGA
’
sclaim that non-fuel alternatives can only be rejected based on a comparison to thecost-effectiveness of the fuel measure.EPA
’
s 1997 Guidance (Guidance on Useof Opt-in to RFG and Low RVPRequirements in Ozone SIPs, August,1997, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Mobile Sources)describes the factors generally to beconsidered in evaluating thereasonableness and practicability of non-fuel alternatives under section211(c)(4)(C). These factors include, but
VerDate 11<MAY>200015:38 Apr 25, 2001Jkt 194001PO 00000Frm 00031Fmt 4700Sfmt 4700E:\FR\FM\26APR1.SGMpfrm01PsN: 26APR1
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...