57274 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

comments received and that New 

Jersey’s revised diesel idling rule is 

enforceable and approvable as a control 

strategy to attain and maintain the 

national ambient air quality standards, 

as consistent with section 110(a)(2) of 

the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

II. Proposed EPA Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

revisions to New Jersey’s diesel idling 

rule as part of New Jersey’s ozone and 

particulate matter SIPs. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: September 19, 2008. 

Alan J. Steinberg, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. E8–23246 Filed 10–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 80 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161; FRL–8723–4] 

RIN 2060–AO80 

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel 

Additives: Modifications to Renewable 

Fuel Standard Program Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to take 

action on amendments to the Renewable 

Fuel Standard program requirements. 

Following publication of the final rule 

promulgating the Renewable Fuel 

Standard regulations, EPA discovered a 

number of technical errors and areas 

within the regulations that could benefit 

from clarification or modification. This 

proposed rule would amend the 

regulations to make the appropriate 

corrections, clarifications and 

modifications. In the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register, we are amending the 

Renewable Fuel Standard program 

requirements as a direct final rule 

without a prior proposed rule. If we 

receive no adverse comment, we will 

not take further action on this proposed 

rule. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by November 3, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2005–0161, by mail to Air and 

Radiation Docket, Docket No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2005–0161, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6406J, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of 2 copies. 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: 

Megan Brachtl, Compliance and 

Innovative Strategies Division, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, Mail 

Code: 6406J, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343–9473; fax number: 

(202) 343–2802; e-mail address: 

brachtl.megan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed 

Rule? 

This document proposes to take 

action on amendments to the Renewable 

Fuel Standard program requirements. 

We have published a direct final rule 

which amends the Renewable Fuel 

Standard program requirements in the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register because we view this 

as a noncontroversial action and 

anticipate no adverse comment. We 

have explained our reasons for this 

action in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. 

If we receive no adverse comment, we 

will not take further action on this 

proposed rule. If we receive adverse 

comment, we will withdraw the direct 

final rule and it will not take effect. We 

would address all public comments in 

any subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. If we receive adverse 

comment on a distinct provision of this 

rulemaking, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register 

indicating which provisions we are 

withdrawing. The provisions that are 

not withdrawn will become effective on 

the date set out above, notwithstanding 

adverse comment on any other 

provision. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules 57275 

1See ‘‘Questions and Answers on the Renewable 

Fuel Standard Program’’ at http://www.epa.gov/ 

otaq/renewablefuels/index.htm#comp. 

We do not intend to institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information, please see the information 

provided in the ADDRESSES section of 

this document. 

II. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action include those involved with the 

production, distribution and sale of 

gasoline motor fuel or renewable fuels 

such as ethanol and biodiesel. Regulated 

categories and entities affected by this 

action include: 

Category NAICS codes a SIC codes b Examples of potentially regulated parties 

Industry .......................................... 324110 2911 Petroleum refiners, importers. 

Industry .......................................... 325193 2869 Ethyl alcohol manufacturers. 

Industry .......................................... 325199 2869 Other basic organic chemical manufacturers. 

Industry .......................................... 424690 5169 Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers. 

Industry .......................................... 424710 5171 Petroleum bulk stations and terminals. 

Industry .......................................... 424720 5172 Petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers. 

Industry .......................................... 454319 5989 Other fuel dealers. 

a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

bStandard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this 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 your 

entity is regulated by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria of Part 80, subparts 

D, E and F of title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. If you have any 

question regarding applicability of this 

action to a particular entity, consult the 

person in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section above. 

III. What Should I Consider as I 

Prepare My Comments for EPA? 

A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.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. 

B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• 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. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

C. Docket Copying Costs. You may be 

charged a reasonable fee for 

photocopying docket materials, as 

provided in 40 CFR part 2. 

IV. Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

Amendments 

Following publication of the final 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 

program regulations (72 FR 23900, May 

1, 2007), EPA discovered a number of 

areas within the RFS regulations at 40 

CFR Part 80, Subpart K that were in 

error, were unclear, or otherwise could 

benefit from modification. We have 

attempted to clarify some ambiguities in 

our Question and Answer document for 

the RFS program.1 However, in some 

cases we believe it is appropriate to 

modify the regulations. As a result, we 

are proposing to make the following 

amendments to the RFS regulations in 

Subpart K. 

A. Summary of Amendments 

Below is a table listing the provisions 

that we are proposing to amend. Many 

of the amendments address grammatical 

or typographical errors, or provide 

minor clarifications. A few amendments 

are being made in order to assist 

regulated entities in complying with the 

RFS program requirements and to lessen 

regulatory requirements where possible 

without compromising the goals of the 

RFS program. We have provided 

additional explanation for several of 

these amendments in sections IV.B 

through IV.H below. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

57276 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

RFS PROGRAM AMENDMENTS

Section Description 

80.1101(d)(2) .................................. Corrected typographical error. 

80.1101(d)(3) .................................. Clarified that no more than 5 volume percent denaturant may be included in the volume of ethanol produced, imported or exported for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements under this 

subpart. See Section IV.B. 

80.1107(c) ....................................... Clarified that the gasoline products to be included in an obligated party’s Renewable Volume Obligation 

(RVO) calculation should not be double-counted. 

80.1126(a)(1) .................................. Clarified that this provision pertains to Renewable Identification Number (RIN) generation, not RIN transfers. 

80.1126(b) ....................................... Clarified that renewable fuel producers that are below the 10,000 gallon threshold are exempt from the attest engagement requirements in 80.1164 as well as other reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

80.1126(d)(1) .................................. Clarified that the RIN that must be generated for each batch of renewable fuel that is produced or imported 

is a ‘‘batch-RIN.’’ 

80.1127(b)(2) .................................. Corrected typographical error in deficit carryover equation. 

80.1128(a)(5) (ii) and (iii); removed 

(a)(5) (iv) & (v).

Revised this paragraph to allow parties to use an equivalence value of 2.5 RINs per gallon for any renewable fuel for purposes of calculating the end-of-quarter check. See Section IV.C. 

80.1128(a)(6); removed (a)(7) ........ Deleted. Based on experience with the program to date, we believe this requirement is not necessary to 

fulfill the goals of the program. See Section IV.D. (§ 80.1128(a) has also been renumbered to adjust for 

this change.) 

80.1129(b)(1) and (b)(8) ................. Revised to clarify that a party with a small refinery or small refiner exemption may only separate RINs that 

have been assigned to a volume of renewable fuel that the party blends into motor vehicle fuel. 

80.1129(b)(2) .................................. Revised to clarify that up to 2.5 gallon-RINs may be separated when a volume of renewable fuel is blended into gasoline. 

80.1129(b)(4) .................................. Revised to allow any party to separate the RINs from renewable fuel that it produces or markets for use in 

motor vehicles in neat form, or uses in motor vehicles in neat form. An oversight in the current regulations only allows this for renewable fuel producers and importers. 

80.1129(b)(6) .................................. Revised to provide that this provision applies only to neat fuel for which an obligated party generates RINs. 

See Section IV.E. 

80.1129(d) ....................................... Revised to delete the requirement that a separated RIN may not be transferred on a product transfer document that is used to transfer a volume of renewable fuel, since it will be clear from other information required on the product transfer document whether or not any assigned RINs have also been transferred 

with the fuel. 

80.1131(a)(8); removed (b)(4) ........ Moved the text in paragraph (b)(4) to a new paragraph (a)(8) in order to clarify that a RIN that is transferred to two or more parties is considered an invalid RIN. 

80.1132(a), (b) and (c) .................... Revised to clarify that the requirements of § 80.1132 apply to fuel that has been disposed of as well as fuel 

that has been spilled. See Section IV.F. 

80.1141(a)(1), 80.1142(a)(1) .......... Amended to clarify that a refinery with an approved small refinery exemption or a refiner with a small refiner exemption is exempt from requirements that apply to obligated parties during the period of time that 

the small refinery or small refiner exemption is in effect. 

80.1141(a)(1) .................................. Corrected calendar year reference. 

80.1141(a)(4), 80.1142(a)(4) .......... Revised to clarify that the small refinery and small refiner exemptions only apply to refineries or refiners 

that process crude oil, or feedstocks derived from crude oil, through refinery processing units. 

80.1141(b)(2)(ii) .............................. Revised in order to clarify that small refinery status can be transferred with the sale of a refinery. Section 

80.1141(b)(2)(ii) currently requires the owner of a small refinery to submit a letter stating that the company owned the refinery as of the applicable date for eligibility for small refinery status. This provision 

has been revised to require the letter only to state that the refinery was small as of the applicable date. 

Thus, any refinery that qualifies for small refinery status retains its status even if the refinery is sold to 

another company. 

80.1142(e) ....................................... Revised to clarify that a refiner who is disqualified as a small refiner must notify EPA in writing no later 

than 20 days following the disqualifying event. 

80.1151(a)(3)(i), (b)(4)(i) and 

(d)(3)(i).

Deleted requirement to retain records of ‘‘expired RINs,’’ since it is apparent when a RIN has expired from 

the date of the RIN and information regarding expired RINs is not required to be reported to EPA. See 

Section IV.G. 

80.1152(c)(1) (iii) and (v), (c)(2) ..... Deleted requirement to report ‘‘expired RINs,’’ since it will be apparent when a RIN has expired from other 

information provided in the reports. Paragraph (c)(2) has also been renumbered. See Section IV.G. Deleted provisions relating to the submission of transaction and quarterly gallon-RIN reports on a facilityby-facility basis, since RIN trading activities are conducted on a company basis. 

80.1153(a)(5) .................................. Revised to clarify the language required to be included on product transfer documents for transfers of fuel 

with no assigned RINs. 

80.1154(a)(4) and (b) ...................... Revised to clarify that producers who produce less than 10,000 gallons of renewable fuel per year are exempt from the attest engagement requirements as well as the other recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 

80.1160(a), (b)(1), and (f) ............... Revised to clarify specific acts that are prohibited under the RFS program. 

80.1164 ........................................... Revised to clarify the attest engagement requirements, and, where possible, to modify the requirements to 

make them less burdensome. See Section IV.H. 

80.1165, 80.1166, 80.1167 ............. Corrected typographical errors. 

B. Amount of Denaturant in Ethanol 

Section 80.1101(d)(3) specifies that 

ethanol must contain a denaturant to be 

covered by the definition of ‘‘renewable 

fuel’’ under the RFS rule. For purposes 

of compliance with the RFS, a volume 

of ethanol includes the volume of 

denaturant contained in the ethanol. 

Under § 80.1107(d), renewable fuel, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules 57277 

including denatured ethanol, is 

excluded from the volume of gasoline 

produced or imported for purposes of 

calculating an obligated party’s RVO. 

Under § 80.1130, any denatured ethanol 

that is exported is included in the 

volume of renewable fuel exported for 

purposes of calculating the exporter’s 

RVO. However, the regulations do not 

specify a maximum limit on the amount 

of denaturant that may be included in 

the volume of ethanol produced, 

imported or exported for purposes of 

these compliance calculations and other 

requirements under the RFS rule. 

In promulgating the RFS regulations, 

we assumed that the amount of 

denaturant included in a volume of 

ethanol normally would not exceed the 

industry maximum specification under 

ASTM D–4806, which is 5 percent. 

Since the rule was published, it has 

come to our attention that larger 

amounts of gasoline are sometimes used 

in ethanol as a denaturant. We believe 

it is appropriate to limit the amount of 

gasoline in ethanol that may be counted 

as a denaturant to an amount that 

reflects the ASTM specification. As 

indicated above, under the current 

regulations, any volume of gasoline 

contained in ethanol as a denaturant is 

excluded from an obligated party’s 

volume of gasoline produced or 

imported for purposes of calculating the 

party’s RVO. As a result, an obligated 

party is not prohibited from adding 

large amounts of gasoline to imported 

ethanol to avoid including the gasoline 

in its RVO calculation, and, at the same 

time, increase the volume of renewable 

fuel for which RINs could be generated. 

Therefore, we are proposing to amend 

the RFS regulations to specify a limit of 

5 volume percent denaturant that may 

be included in a volume of ethanol for 

purposes of determining compliance 

with requirements under the RFS rule. 

C. Equivalence Values for End-ofQuarter Check 

Section 80.1128(a)(5) provides that 

any party who owns assigned RINs must 

demonstrate that the sum of all assigned 

gallon-RINs that the party owns at the 

end of a quarter does not exceed the 

sum of all volumes of renewable fuel the 

party owns at the end of the quarter 

multiplied by their respective 

equivalence values. Section 

80.1128(a)(4) allows a party to transfer 

to another party up to 2.5 assigned RINs 

per gallon of any renewable fuel. 

Therefore, in some cases, a party could 

receive fuel with more assigned RINs 

than would be calculated for that 

volume of fuel using its equivalence 

value. As a result, the party could be out 

of compliance with the end-of-quarter 

check requirement in § 80.1128(a)(5), 

unless the party had enough fuel to sell 

with the excess RINs by the end of the 

quarter. For example, a marketer that 

receives a gallon of biodiesel with 2.5 

assigned gallon-RINs must calculate 

compliance with § 80.1128(a)(5) based 

on the equivalence value of the 

biodiesel, which is 1.5. If this were the 

marketer’s only transaction, the 

marketer would be out of compliance at 

the end of the quarter since he would 

have an excess of 1.0 assigned gallonRINs. To remedy this situation, we are 

proposing to amend § 80.1128(a)(5) to 

allow an equivalence value of 2.5 to be 

used for any volume of renewable fuel 

for purposes of calculating compliance 

with the end-of-quarter check 

requirement in § 80.1128(a)(5). 

D. RIN Transfer Requirements for 

Producers and Importers 

The RFS program allows any party 

that receives assigned RINs with 

renewable fuel to thereafter transfer 

anywhere from zero to 2.5 gallon-RINs 

with each gallon of renewable fuel. This 

provision provides the flexibility to 

transfer more assigned RINs with some 

volumes and fewer assigned RINs with 

other volumes depending on the 

business circumstances of the 

transaction and the number of RINs that 

the seller has available. 

However, this level of flexibility 

could contribute to short-term hoarding 

on the part of producers and importers 

of renewable fuel. As a result, we 

implemented a provision at 

§ 80.1128(a)(6) that requires producers 

and importers to transfer assigned 

gallon-RINs with gallons such that the 

ratio of assigned gallon-RINs to gallons 

is equal to the equivalence value for the 

renewable fuel. In effect, this requires 

renewable fuel producers and importers 

to transfer every single batch of 

renewable fuel with all assigned RINs 

generated for that batch. We have 

interpreted this provision as applying 

only to producers and importers who 

only sell renewable fuel that they 

produce or import themselves. It does 

not apply to producers or importers that 

are also marketers of renewable fuel 

produced or imported by another party. 

Since the start of the RFS program, 

there have been numerous 

circumstances in which parties who 

purchase renewable fuel from a 

producer or importer wanted to avoid 

the registration, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements of the program. 

To do this, they had to avoid taking 

ownership of RINs. In some cases the 

producer or importer has 

accommodated such parties by taking 

ownership of renewable fuel from 

another party, thereby becoming a 

marketer who is not subject to 

§ 80.1128(a)(6). However, this has not 

always been possible, and in such cases 

the purchaser has been forced to seek 

out alternative sources of renewable 

fuel. This latter outcome is inconsistent 

with one of our goals for the RFS 

program—structuring the program so it 

would have only a minimal effect on 

common business practices. 

After further consideration, we do not 

believe that producers and importers of 

renewable fuel should be required to 

transfer all RINs generated with every 

batch of renewable fuel that is 

produced. Instead, we believe that it 

should be sufficient that they comply 

with the end-of-quarter check in 

§ 80.1128(a)(5) and the restriction in 

that section on the number of gallonRINs that can be transferred with each 

gallon. This change would recognize 

that most producers and importers can 

already avoid the limitations of 

§ 80.1128(a)(6) by buying a small 

quantity of renewable fuel from another 

party and thereby becoming a marketer. 

The change would also have minimal 

impact on the transfer of RINs with 

volume, as producers and importers 

would be limited in the number of RINs 

they could hold onto given the end-ofquarter check. As a result, we are 

proposing to amend the regulations to 

delete the provisions contained in 

§ 80.1128(a)(6). 

E. RINs That an Obligated Party 

Generates 

Section 80.1129(b)(1) provides that an 

obligated party must separate any RINs 

that have been assigned to a volume of 

renewable fuel that the obligated party 

owns. An exception to this requirement 

is provided in § 80.1129(b)(6) for 

obligated parties who also generate 

RINs. Under this section, an obligated 

party who generates RINs may separate 

such RINs from volumes of renewable 

fuel only up to the level of gallon-RINs 

of the party’s RVO. The limitation in 

§ 80.1129(b)(6) was included in the 

regulations to prevent a renewable fuel 

producer from importing a small 

amount of gasoline, which would 

qualify the producer as an obligated 

party, in order to separate the RINs from 

all of the renewable fuel that the party 

produced. 

It has come to our attention that the 

limitation in § 80.1129(b)(6) may be 

problematic in situations where a party 

imports gasoline that contains 

renewable fuel. Under § 80.1126(d), 

RINs must be generated for any 

renewable fuel that is imported, 

including any renewable fuel contained 

in imported gasoline. For example, if a 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

57278 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

party imports 100 gallons of E10, the 

party would be required to generate 

RINs for the volume of ethanol in the 

E10, which would be 10 gallon-RINs. 

The party also would calculate its RVO 

based on the applicable RFS standard, 

which for 2008 is 7.76%. The standard 

as applied to the gasoline part of the 

volume of imported E10 in the example 

would result in an RVO of 6.98 gallonRINs (7.76% × 90 gallons). Since the 

party would be able to separate RINs 

only up to the party’s RVO, or 6.98 

gallon-RINs, the party would have 3.02 

assigned gallon-RINs which could not 

be separated. Under § 80.1128(a)(5), 

each party that owns assigned RINs 

must demonstrate that the party does 

not own more assigned gallon-RINs at 

the end of each quarter than the amount 

of renewable fuel in the party’s 

inventory, multiplied by its equivalence 

value. In the example above, the party 

would own 3.02 assigned gallon-RINs at 

the end of the quarter, but would not 

have any renewable fuel in its 

inventory. As a result, the party would 

not be in compliance with the 

requirement in § 80.1128(a)(5). 

To address this situation, this rule 

would modify the regulations to apply 

the limitation in § 80.1129(b)(6) only to 

neat renewable fuel for which the party 

generates RINs and not to renewable 

fuel already blended in gasoline. Thus, 

in the example above, the party would 

generate 10 gallon-RINs for the ethanol 

contained in the E10 and the party’s 

RVO would be 6.98 gallon-RINs, but the 

party would be able to separate all of the 

10 gallon-RINs from the fuel. The party 

then would have no assigned RINs at 

the end of the quarter and would not be 

in violation of the requirement in 

§ 80.1128(a)(5). If the party in our 

example imported 100 gallons of nonethanol gasoline and 10 gallons of neat 

renewable fuel, the party would 

generate 10 gallon-RINs, but could only 

separate RINs up to the party’s RVO, 

which be 7.76 gallon-RINs (7.76% × 100 

gallons). As a result, the party would 

have 2.24 assigned gallon-RINs left, but 

would also have10 gallons of renewable 

fuel in its inventory, and, therefore, the 

party would be in compliance with the 

requirement in § 80.1128(a)(5). 

F. Renewable Fuel That Has Been 

Disposed of 

Under § 80.1132, in the event of a 

spillage of renewable fuel that is 

required by a federal, state or local 

authority to be reported, the owner of 

the renewable fuel must retire an 

appropriate number of gallon-RINs. 

Since the RFS rule was promulgated, it 

has come to our attention that disposal 

of renewable fuel may also be required 

to be reported to a government 

authority. We believe it is appropriate to 

treat such disposals of renewable fuel in 

the same manner as spillages of 

renewable fuel, since in both situations 

the fuel will not ultimately be used in 

motor vehicle fuel. As a result, we are 

proposing to amend § 80.1132 to apply 

to reportable disposals of renewable fuel 

as well as reportable spillages of 

renewable fuel. 

G. Elimination of Expired RIN Category 

Under § 80.1127(a)(3), RINs may only 

be used to demonstrate compliance with 

the RVO for the calendar year in which 

they were generated or the following 

year. Therefore, after two years, RINs 

have no value and are deemed to have 

expired. The regulations currently 

require information regarding expired 

RINs to be retained and included in the 

reports submitted to EPA. However, 

since EPA will know from the 

information contained in the RIN when 

the RIN was generated, EPA will also 

know when the RIN has expired. 

Therefore, we have determined that the 

requirements to retain records of 

expired RINs and to include information 

regarding expired RINs in the reports 

submitted to EPA are unnecessary, and, 

as a result, we are proposing to amend 

the regulations to eliminate the 

requirements to retain records and 

report information regarding expired 

RINs. 

H. Attest Engagements 

This rule proposes to make several 

revisions to the attest engagement 

provisions in § 80.1164 in order to 

correct minor technical errors, clarify 

the procedures required to be fulfilled 

by the attest auditor, and, where 

possible, revise the procedures to make 

them less burdensome without 

compromising the goals of the program. 

For audits of the obligated party 

compliance demonstration reports, the 

rule proposes to require the attest 

auditor to calculate the total number of 

RINs used for compliance by year of 

generation and reconcile that total with 

the information reported to EPA rather 

than calculating and reporting as a 

finding all RINs used for compliance. 

For audits of the RIN transaction and 

RIN activity reports, the rule proposes to 

clarify the type of documentation that is 

required to be provided to the attest 

auditor for purposes of verifying the 

information contained in the reports. 

The rule also proposes to require the 

attest auditor to review product transfer 

documents (PTDs) for a representative 

sample of RINs used for compliance and 

a representative sample of renewable 

fuel batches that any party sells to 

another party. Under the current 

regulations, the auditor is required to 

review PTDs for each batch of 

renewable fuel produced or imported by 

a renewable fuel producer or importer, 

which we believe is unnecessarily 

burdensome, and does not require 

review of PTDs generated by other 

parties. In addition, the rule proposes to 

provide that the documentation 

required for the attest audit of the RIN 

activity reports must include, for 

owners of assigned RINs, the volume of 

renewable fuel owned at the end of the 

quarter in order to verify the accuracy 

of information relating to compliance 

with the end-of-quarter inventory check 

in § 80.1128(a)(5). The rule proposes to 

add a requirement that a company 

representative must provide the attest 

auditor with a written representation 

that the copies of the EPA reports 

provided to the auditor are complete 

and accurate copies of the reports. This 

is a requirement for attest procedures 

under other fuels programs and 

omission of this requirement in the RFS 

rule was an oversight. The rule also 

proposes to include a provision which 

requires the attest auditor to identify the 

commercial computer program used by 

the regulated party to track the data 

required for purposes of compliance 

with the RFS requirements. 

V. Relationship to the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

The Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA) amended 

Clean Air Act section 211(o) in many 

respects, including requiring a 

substantially greater volume of 

renewable fuel use in the future. EPA is 

currently developing implementing 

regulations for this new legislation. 

EISA also included language addressing 

the transition period between its 

enactment and the time when new 

regulations are promulgated. EISA 

Section 210(a)(2) provides that ‘‘[u]ntil 

January 1, 2009, the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

shall implement section 211(o) of the 

Clean Air Act and the rules promulgated 

under that section in accordance with 

the provisions of that section as in effect 

before the enactment of this Act and in 

accordance with the rules promulgated 

before the enactment of this Act,’’ with 

certain exceptions. EPA believes that 

the intent of this transition provision of 

EISA was to maintain the fundamental 

program components and requirements 

of the existing regulations, but that it 

does not limit EPA’s ability to make 

minor programmatic changes that ease 

the administration and implementation 

of the current program. Accordingly, 

EPA views the changes proposed today 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules 57279 

to the 211(o) regulations to be ‘‘in 

accordance’’ with the regulations in 

effect when EISA was enacted, and will 

implement the finalized regulations 

upon their effective date. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 

51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

It has been determined that this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 and is therefore not subject to 

OMB review. This proposed rule simply 

makes minor technical changes to the 

RFS regulations and modifies the 

requirements to make them less 

burdensome for regulated parties where 

possible. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not propose to 

impose any new information collection 

burden. This action proposes to make 

minor technical corrections to the 

regulations and modifies certain 

requirements to lessen the burden on 

related parties while maintaining the 

overall goals of the program. None of the 

changes in the rule require any 

additional information collection 

burdens. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has previously approved 

the information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations 40 

CFR part 80, subpart K, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has 

assigned OMB control number 2060– 

0600. The OMB control numbers for 

EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In determining whether a rule 

has a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

This action proposes to make minor 

technical corrections to the regulations 

and modifies certain requirements to 

lessen the burden on regulated parties 

while maintaining the overall goals of 

the program. We have therefore 

concluded that today’s proposed rule 

will relieve regulatory burden for 

affected small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. This action makes minor 

technical corrections to the RFS 

regulations and modifies certain 

provisions to lessen the requirements 

for regulated parties. As a result, this 

proposed rule will have the overall 

effect of reducing the burden of the RFS 

regulations on regulated parties. Thus, 

this proposal is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

This proposed rule is also not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. It 

only applies to gasoline and renewable 

fuel producers, importers, distributors 

and marketers and makes minor 

corrections and modifications to the 

RFS regulations. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It would 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. This action 

proposes to make minor technical 

corrections and modifications to 

existing regulations in order to lessen 

the burden on related parties. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). It applies to 

gasoline and renewable fuel producers, 

importers, distributors and marketers. 

This action makes minor corrections 

and modifications to the RFS 

regulations, and does not impose any 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

57280 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 192 / Thursday, October 2, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

enforceable duties on communities of 

Indian tribal governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it would not establish an 

environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposal is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 18355 

(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposal will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. These technical 

amendments do not relax the control 

measures on sources regulated by the 

RFS regulations and therefore will not 

cause emissions increases from these 

sources. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80 

Environmental protection, Fuel 

additives, Gasoline, Imports, Motor 

vehicle pollution, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 25, 2008. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–23130 Filed 10–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 07–2854; MB Docket No. 07–125; RM– 

11375] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Oolitic, 

IN 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document requests 

comments on a petition for rulemaking 

filed by Bruce Quinn, requesting the 

allotment of Channel 231A at Oolitic, 

Indiana. The coordinates for Channel 

231A at Oolitic, Indiana, are 38–59–16 

NL and 86–37–47 WL. There is a site 

restriction of 13.2 kilometers (8.2 miles) 

northwest of the community. Proposed 

Channel 231A is short-spaced to the 

licensed site of Station WQKC–FM, 

Channel 229B, Seymour, Indiana. 

However, Station WQKC–FM’s license 

was modified to specify operation on 

Channel 230A at Sellersburg, Indiana in 

MB Docket No. 03–98 and the FM Table 

of Allotments was amended to reflect 

this change. Therefore, no protection is 

afforded to this license site. A Petition 

for Reconsideration of the letter 

dismissal of this Petition is dismissed as 

moot. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before November 3, 2008, and reply 

comments on or before November 17, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 

Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. In addition to filing comments 

with the FCC, interested parties should 

serve the petitioner as follows: Bruce 

Quinn, 1217 Lafayette Avenue, 

Columbus, Indiana 47201. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Victoria M. McCauley, Media Bureau, 

(202) 418–2180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 

07–125, adopted June 27, 2007, and 

released June 29, 2007. The full text of 

this Commission decision is available 

for inspection and copying during 

normal business hours in the FCC’s 

Reference Information Center at Portals 

II, CY–A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractors, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20054, telephone 800– 

378–3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com. 

This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden ‘‘for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. 

Members of the public should note 

that from the time a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is issued until the matter is 

no longer subject to Commission 

consideration or court review, all ex 

parte contacts are prohibited in 

Commission proceedings, such as this 

one, which involve channel allotments. 

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules 

governing permissible ex parte contacts. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

Part 73 as follows: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS