Removal of Reformulated Gasoline Oxygen Content

9070 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules

ethanol, in particular, into gasoline is ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION provisions must be received by OMB on expected to increase considerably, not AGENCY or before March 24, 2006. decrease. Therefore, despite this action Hearings: If EPA receives a request to remove the oxygenate mandate for 40 CFR Part 80 from a person wishing to speak at a RFG in California, when viewed in the public hearing by March 9, 2006, a [EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0170; FRL–8034–9] context of companion energy legislation, public hearing will be held on March overall use of oxygenates is expected to Regulation of Fuels and Fuel 24, 2006. If a public hearing is increase in the future. This rule also Additives: Removal of Reformulated requested, it will be held at a time and would allow gasoline retailers to Gasoline Oxygen Content Requirement location to be announced in a commingle certain compliant gasolines and Revision of Commingling subsequent Federal Register notice. To which otherwise would be prohibited Prohibition To Address Non- request to speak at a public hearing, FOR from being commingled. This also may Oxygenated Reformulated Gasoline send a request to the contact in FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. have a positive effect on gasoline AGENCY: Environmental Protection supplies. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, Agency (EPA). identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– I. National Technology Transfer and ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. OAR–2005–0170 by one of the following Advancement Act methods: SUMMARY: In the Energy Policy Act of 1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow Section 12(d) of the National 2005 (Energy Act), Congress removed the on-line instructions for submitting Technology Transfer and Advancement the oxygen content requirement for comments. Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Pub. L. 104– reformulated gasoline (RFG) in section 2. E-mail: Group A-AND-R- 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). To [email protected]. Attention Docket ID directs EPA to use voluntary consensus be consistent with the current CAA No. OAR–2005–0170. standards in its regulatory activities Section 211(k), this rule would amend 4. Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, unless to do so would be inconsistent the fuels regulations at 40 CFR Part 80 Environmental Protection Agency, with applicable law or otherwise to remove the oxygen content Mailcode: 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania impractical. Voluntary consensus requirement for RFG. This rule also Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. standards are technical standards (e.g., would remove requirements which were Please include a total of two copies. In materials specifications, test methods, included in the regulations to addition, please mail a copy of your sampling procedures, and business implement and ensure compliance with comments on the information collection practices) that are developed or adopted the oxygen content requirement. In provisions to the Office of Information by voluntary consensus standards addition, this rule would extend the and Regulatory Affairs, Office of bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to current prohibition against combining Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: VOC-controlled RFG blended with provide Congress, through OMB, Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., ethanol with VOC-controlled RFG explanations when the Agency decides Washington, DC 20503. blended with any other type of not to use available and applicable 5. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, oxygenate from January 1 through voluntary consensus standards. Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 September 15, to also prohibit Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B102, This proposed would not establish combining VOC-controlled RFG blended Mail Code 6102T, Washington, DC new technical standards within the with ethanol with non-oxygenated VOC- 20460. Such deliveries are only meaning of the NTTAA. Therefore, EPA controlled RFG during that time period, accepted during the Docket’s normal did not consider the use of any except in limited circumstances hours of operation, and special voluntary consensus standards. authorized by the Act. arrangements should be made for In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ VI. Statutory Provisions and Legal deliveries of boxed information. section of the Federal Register, we are Instructions: Direct your comments to Authority issuing these amendments to the RFG Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005– The statutory authority for the actions regulations as a direct final rule without 0170. EPA’s policy is that all comments in today’s direct final rule comes from prior proposal because we view them as received will be included in the public noncontroversial amendments and sections 211(c), 211(k) and 301(a) of the docket without change and may be anticipate no adverse comment. We CAA. made available online at have explained our reasons for these www.regulations.gov, including any List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80 amendments in the preamble to the personal information provided, unless direct final rule. If we receive no the comment includes information Environmental protection, Air adverse comment, we will not take claimed to be Confidential Business pollution control, Fuel additives, further action on this proposed rule. If Information (CBI) or other information Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, we receive adverse comment, we will whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Reporting and recordkeeping withdraw the direct final fuel and it will Do not submit information that you requirements. not take effect. We will address all consider to be CBI or otherwise Dated: February 14, 2006. public comments in a subsequent final protected through www.regulations.gov rule based on this proposed rule. We Stephen L. Johnson, or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web will not institute a second comment site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, Administrator. period on this action. Any parties which means EPA will not know your [FR Doc. 06–1614 Filed 2–21–06; 8:45 am] interested in commenting must do so at identity or contact information unless BILLING CODE 6560–50–P this time. you provide it in the body of your DATES: Comments: Comments must be comment. If you send an e-mail received on or before March 24, 2006. comment directly to EPA without going Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, through www.regulations.gov your e- comments on the information collection mail address will be automatically

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:03 Feb 21, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM 22FEP1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules 9071

captured and included as part of the ethanol blended RFG with non-ethanol FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comment that is placed in the public blended RFG. Comments on any other Marilyn Bennett, Transportation and docket and made available on the issues or provisions in the RFG Regional Programs Division, Office of Internet. If you submit an electronic regulations are beyond the scope of this Transportation and Air Quality (6406J), comment, EPA recommends that you rulemaking. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 include your name and other contact Docket: All documents in the docket Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., information in the body of your are listed in the www.regulations.gov Washington, DC 20460; telephone comment and with any disk or CD–ROM index. Although listed in the index, number: (202) 343–9624; fax number: you submit. If EPA cannot read your some information is not publicly (202) 343–2803; e-mail address: comment due to technical difficulties available, i.e., CBI or other information [email protected]. and cannot contact you for clarification, whose disclosure is restricted by statute. EPA may not be able to consider your Certain other material, such as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For comment. Electronic files should avoid copyrighted material, will be publicly further information, please see the the use of special characters, any form available only in hard copy. Publicly information provided in the direct final of encryption, and be free of any defects available docket materials are available action that is located in the ‘‘Rules and or viruses. For additional information either electronically in Regulations’’ section of this Federal about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Register publication. Docket Center Home page at http:// the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. EPA West, Room B102, 1301 I. General Information We are only taking comment on issues Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, A. Does This Action Apply To Me? related to the removal of the oxygen DC. The Public Reading Room is open requirement for RFG and associated from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday Entities potentially affected by this compliance requirements, and the through Friday, excluding legal action include those involved with the provisions regarding the combining of holidays. The telephone number for the production and importation of ethanol blended RFG with non- Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, conventional gasoline motor fuel. oxygenated RFG and provisions for and the telephone number for the Air Regulated categories and entities retailers regarding the combining of and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. affected by this action include:

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

Industry .... 324110 2911 Petroleum Refiners, Importers. Industry .... 422710 5171 Gasoline Marketers and Distributors. 422720 5172 Industry .... 484220 4212 Gasoline Carriers. 484230 4213 a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

This table is not intended to be identify electronically within the disk or 5. If you estimate potential costs or exhaustive, but rather provides a guide CD ROM the specific information that is burdens, explain how you arrived at for readers regarding entities likely to be claimed as CBI). In addition to one your estimate in sufficient detail to regulated by this action. This table lists complete version of the comment that allow for it to be reproduced. includes information claimed as CBI, a the types of entities that EPA is now 6. Provide specific examples to copy of the comment that does not aware could be potentially regulated by illustrate your concerns, and suggest this action. Other types of entities not contain the information claimed as CBI alternatives. listed in the table could also be must be submitted for inclusion in the regulated. To determine whether your public docket. Information so marked 7. Explain your views as clearly as entity is regulated by this action, you will not be disclosed except in possible, avoiding the use of profanity should carefully examine the accordance with procedures set forth in or personal threats. applicability criteria of part 80, subparts 40 CFR part 2. 8. Make sure to submit your 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. D, E and F of title 40 of the Code of comments by the comment period When submitting comments, remember Federal Regulations. If you have any deadline identified. question regarding applicability of this to: 3. Docket Copying Costs. You may be action to a particular entity, consult the 1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying charged a reasonable fee for person in the preceding FOR FURTHER information (subject heading, Federal photocopying docket materials, as INFORMATION CONTACT section above. Register date and page number). provided in 40 CFR part 2. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 2. Follow directions—The agency may My Comments for EPA? ask you to respond to specific questions C. Outline of This Preamble or organize comments by referencing a I. General Information 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part II. Removal of the RFG Oxygen Content information to EPA through or section number. Requirement www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 3. Explain why you agree or disagree; III. Combining Ethanol Blended RFG With mark the part or all of the information suggest alternatives and substitute Non-Ethanol Blended RFG that you claim to be CBI. For CBI language for your requested changes. IV. Environmental Effects of This Action information in a disk or CD ROM that 4. Describe any assumptions and V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the provide any technical information and/ VI. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority disk or CD ROM as CBI and then or data that you used.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:42 Feb 21, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM 22FEP1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS 9072 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules

II. Removal of the RFG Oxygen Content require RFG refiners, importers and would modify the RFG regulations to Requirement oxygenate blenders to meet a 2.0 or remove the oxygen standard in § 80.41.2 greater weight percent oxygen content Today’s proposed rule would also Section 211(k) of the 1990 standard. 40 CFR 80.41. Recently, modify several other sections of the RFG Amendments to the Clean Air Act Congress passed legislation which regulations which contain provisions (CAA) required reformulated gasoline amends Section 211(k) of the CAA to designed to implement and ensure (RFG) to contain oxygen in an amount remove the RFG oxygen requirement.1 compliance with the oxygen standard. that equals or exceeds 2.0 weight To be consistent with the current CAA The proposed modifications to the percent. CAA Section 211(k)(2)(B). Section 211(k), today’s proposed rule affected sections are listed in the Accordingly, EPA’s current regulations following table:

§ 80.2(ii) ...... Would remove oxygen in the definition of ‘‘reformulated gasoline credit.’’ With the removal of the oxygen standard, there would be no basis for the generation oxygen credits. §§ 80.41(e) and (f) 3 ...... Would remove the per-gallon and averaged oxygen standard for Phase II Complex Model RFG § 80.41(o) ...... Would remove the provisions relating to oxygen survey failures. With the removal of the oxygen standard, oxygen surveys would not longer be needed. § 80.41(q) ...... Would remove reference to § 180.41(o). Also would remove reference to oxygenate blenders since oxygenate blenders were subject only to adjusted standards in the case of an oxygen survey failure and not any other survey failure. § 80.65 heading ...... Would remove oxygenate blenders from the heading since oxygenate blenders were only responsible for dem- onstrating compliance with the oxygen standard which would be removed. § 80.65(c) ...... Would remove requirements relating to compliance with the oxygen standard which would be removed. § 80.65(d) ...... Would remove the designation requirement relating to oxygen content, remove the RBOB designation categories of ‘‘any oxygenate’’ and ‘‘ether only,’and add a requirement for RBOB to be designated regarding the type and amount of oxygenate required to be added. § 80.65(e) ...... Would remove the requirement for oxygen test results to be received prior to the gasoline leaving the refinery or importer facility since there would no longer be an oxygen per-gallon minimum standard. § 80.65(h) ...... Would remove the requirement for oxygenate blenders to comply with the audit requirements under subpart F since they would no longer be a requirement to demonstrate compliance with the oxygen standard. § 80.67(a) ...... Would remove the option to comply with the oxygen standard on average for oxygenate blenders since there no longer would be an oxygen standard. Also would remove provisions for refiners and importers to use gasoline that exceeds the average standard for oxygen to offset gasoline which does not achieve the average standard for oxygen. § 80.67(b) ...... Would remove requirements relating to oxygenate blenders who meet the oxygen standard on average since there no longer would be an oxygen standard. § 80.67(f) ...... Would remove requirements relating to compliance with the oxygen standard on average since there no longer would be an oxygen standard. § 80.67(g) ...... Would remove requirements relating to compliance calculations for meeting the oxygen standard on average, since there no longer would be an oxygen standard. Also would remove requirements relating to the generation and use of oxygen credits. § 80.67(h) ...... Would remove requirements relating to the transfer of oxygen credits. § 80.68(a) and (b) ...... Would remove references to oxygenate blenders since, with the removal of the requirement for oxygen survey, they would no longer be subject to survey requirements. Also would remove reference to oxygen regarding consequences of a failure to conduct a required survey. § 80.68(c) ...... Would remove general survey requirements relating to oxygen surveys. § 80.73 ...... Would clarify the applicability of this section to oxygenate blenders. § 80.74(c) ...... Would remove recordkeeping requirements for oxygenate blenders who comply with the oxygen standard on average, since they would no longer be required to demonstrate compliance with an oxygen standard. Also would remove reference to ‘‘types’’ of credits, since there would now only be one type of credit (i.e., ben- zene.) § 80.74(d) ...... Would revise this paragraph to clarify recordkeeping requirements for oxygenate blenders. § 80.75 heading and para- Would remove reporting requirements for oxygenate blenders since they would no longer be required to dem- graph (a). onstrate compliance with an oxygen standard. § 80.75(f) ...... Would remove requirement for submitting oxygen averaging reports since there would no longer be a requirement to comply with the oxygen standard. § 80.75(h) ...... Would remove credit transfer report requirements for oxygen credits, since oxygen credits would no longer be generated. § 80.75(i) ...... Would remove requirement for oxygenate blenders to submit a report identifying each covered area that was supplied with averaged RFG, since they would no longer be required to demonstrate compliance with an oxygen standard. § 80.75(l) ...... Would remove reporting requirement for oxygenate blenders who comply with the oxygen standard on a per- gallon basis, since they would no longer be required to demonstrate compliance with an oxygen standard. § 80.75(m) ...... Would remove requirement for oxygenate blenders to submit a report of the audit required under § 80.65(h), since oxygenate blenders would no longer be required to comply with the audit requirement. § 80.75(n) ...... Would remove requirement for oxygenate blenders to have reports signed and certified, since they would no longer be required to submit reports under this section. § 80.76(a) ...... Would clarify registration requirements for oxygenate blenders.

1 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–58 the preemption provisions in section 211(c)(4). See in effect and today’s rule would not modify the (HR6), section 1504(a), 119 STAT 594, 1076–1077 59 FR 7809 (February 16, 1994.) regulations to remove these standards or (2005). 3 The regulations also include oxygen minimum compliance requirements relating to these 2 The RFG regulations were promulgated under standards for simple model RFG and Phase I standards, except where such requirements are authority of CAA Section 211(c) as well as CAA complex Model RFG, and an oxygen maximum included in provisions requiring other changes in Section 211(k). The regulations were adopted under standard for simple model RFG. See §§ 80.41(a) today’s rule. Section 211(c) primarily for the purpose of applying through (d), and (g). These standards are no longer

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:42 Feb 21, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM 22FEP1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules 9073

§ 80.77(g) ...... Would remove product transfer documentation requirement for oxygen content. § 80.77(i) ...... Would remove requirement for RBOB to be identified on product transfer documents as suitable for blending with ‘‘any-oxygenate,’’ ‘‘ether-only,’’ since these categories would be removed. § 80.78(a) ...... Would remove the prohibition against producing and marketing RFG that does not meet the oxygen minimum standard since the oxygen standard would be removed. Also would remove requirements to meet the oxygen minimum standard during transition from RBOB to RFG in a storage tank. (Today’s rule would also remove the provision in § 80.78(a)(1) regarding compliance with the maximum oxygen standard in § 80.41 for simple model RFG. See footnote 3.) § 80.79 ...... Would remove quality assurance requirement to test for compliance with the oxygen standard. § 80.81(b) ...... Would remove exemptions for California gasoline survey and independent analysis requirements for oxygenate blenders since they would no longer be subject to these requirements. § 80.125(a), (c) and (d) ...... Would remove attest engagement auditor requirements for oxygenate blenders, since they would no longer be required to conduct attest engagement audits. § 80.126(b) ...... Would revise attest engagement definition of credit trading records to remove reference to oxygen credits. § 80.128(e) ...... Would remove reference to RBOB designations of ‘‘any-oxygenate’’ and ‘‘ether-only’’ with regard to refiner and importer contracts with downstream oxygenate blenders, since these designations would be removed from the regulations. § 80.129 ...... Would remove and reserve this section which provided for alternative attest engagement procedures for oxygenate blenders, since they would no longer be required to conduct attest audits. § 80.130(a) ...... Would remove requirement for a certified public accountant or an internal auditor certified by the Institute of Internal Auditors, Inc. to issue an attest engagement report to blenders, since they would no longer be required to conduct attest audits. Would remove requirement for blenders to provide a copy of the auditor’s report to EPA. § 80.133(h) ...... Would remove references to ‘‘any-oxygenate’’ and ‘‘ether-only’’ RBOB under § 80.69(a)(8) since this section would be removed. § 80.134 ...... Would remove this section which provides attest procedures for oxygenate blenders since they would no longer be required to conduct attest audits.

Today’s proposed rule would also Although there would no longer be an needed to result in RFG containing 2.0 modify the provisions for downstream oxygen content requirement, we believe weight percent oxygen will be added oxygenate blending in § 80.69. Under that many refiners and importers would downstream. Section 80.69(a)(8). RBOB the current regulations, some refiners want to continue to include oxygenate refiner or importer compliance with the and importers produce or import a blended downstream in their emissions contract and oversight requirements is product called ‘‘reformulated gasoline performance compliance calculations. not required in this situation because, as blendstock for oxygenate blending,’’ or As a result, the category of RBOB would discussed above, the oxygenate blender RBOB, which is gasoline that becomes be retained and RBOB refiners and has been required to meet the 2.0 weight RFG upon the addition of an oxygenate. importers would be required to comply percent oxygen standard and conduct The refiner or importer of the RBOB with the contract and quality assurance testing designed to ensure that each (QA) oversight requirements in § 80.69 batch of RFG complies with the oxygen determines the type(s) and amount (or 4 5 range of amounts) of oxygenate that for any RBOB produced or imported. standard. Where an RBOB refiner or Under the current regulations, RBOB importer wishes to include a larger must be added to the RBOB. The RBOB refiners and importers are required to amount of oxygenate in its compliance is then transported to an oxygenate have a contract with the downstream calculations (i.e, an amount that would blender downstream from the refiner or oxygenate blender and conduct QA result in RFG containing more than 2.0 importer who adds the type and amount oversight testing of the oxygenate weight percent oxygen), the refiner or of oxygenate designated for the RBOB blending operation to ensure that the importer must comply with the contract by the refiner or importer. The RBOB proper type and amount of oxygenate is and oversight requirements in refiner or importer includes the added downstream. Section 80.69(a)(6) § 80.69(a)(6) and (7) to ensure that the designated amount of oxygenate in its and (7). The regulations also provide proper type and amount of oxygenate is emissions performance compliance that, in lieu of complying with these added. calculations for the RBOB, however, it requirements, a refiner or importer may Because oxygenate blenders would no is the oxygenate blender who actually designate one of two generic categories longer be conducting testing to ensure adds the oxygenate to the RBOB to of oxygenates to be added to the RBOB, compliance with the oxygen standard, comply with the 2.0 weight percent and assume for purposes of its we believe that RBOB refiner or oxygen standard for the RFG that is emissions compliance calculations that importer compliance with the contract produced by blending oxygenate into the minimum amount of oxygenate and QA oversight requirements would the RBOB. The regulations require be necessary for RBOB designated to be oxygenate blenders to conduct testing 4 EPA is developing a rule which would allow blended with any amount of oxygenate, RBOB refiners and importers to use an alternative including an amount of oxygenate for oxygen content to ensure that each method of quality assurance (QA) oversight of batch of RFG complies with the oxygen downstream oxygenate blenders in lieu of the which would result in RFG containing standard. With the removal of the contract and QA requirements in §§ 80.78(a)(6) and 2.0 weight percent (or less) oxygen. As oxygen standard, the current (a)(7). This alternative method consists of a QA a result, today’s rule would require sampling and testing survey program carried out by RBOB refiners and importers to comply requirement for oxygenate blenders to an independent surveyor pursuant to a survey plan conduct testing to ensure compliance approved by EPA. This alternative QA method is with the contract and QA oversight with the oxygen standard would no available to RBOB refiners and importers under requirements in § 80.69 for any RBOB enforcement discretion until the rule is longer be necessary. Accordingly, produced or imported. This approach is promulgated, or December 31, 2007, whichever is consistent with the oversight today’s rule would modify § 80.69 to earlier. See Letter to Edward H. Murphy, American remove the requirement for oxygenate Petroleum Institute, dated December 22, 2005, from Grant Y. Nakayama, Assistant Administrator, Office 5 For a discussion of the downstream oxygenate blenders to test RFG for compliance of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. blending requirements, see the preamble to the RFG with the oxygen standard. Environmental Protection Agency. final rule at 59 FR 7770 (February 16, 1994).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:42 Feb 21, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM 22FEP1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS 9074 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules

requirements in § 80.101(d)(4) for the consequent possibility of increased be combined. Third, the retailer must refiners and importers of conventional VOC emissions. EPA’s existing retain, and, upon request by EPA, make gasoline who wish to include oxygen regulations prohibit the commingling of available for inspection certifications added downstream from the refinery or ethanol-blended RFG with RFG accounting for all gasoline at the retail importer in anti-dumping emissions containing other oxygenates because the outlet. Fourth, retailers are prohibited compliance calculations. non-ethanol RFG is typically not able to from combining VOC-controlled Although oxygenate blenders would be mixed with ethanol and still comply gasoline with non-VOC-controlled no longer be subject to the oxygen with the VOC performance standards. gasoline between June 1 and September standard and associated testing Since all RFG is currently required to 15. Retailers are also limited with regard requirements, we believe that the contain oxygen, the regulations do not to the frequency in which batches of current requirements for oxygenate now contain a prohibition against non-ethanol-blended RFG may be blenders to be registered with EPA, to combining ethanol-blended RFG with combined with ethanol-blended RFG. add the specific type(s) and amount (or non-oxygenated RFG. With the removal Retailers may combine such batches of range of amounts) of oxygenate of the oxygen content requirement for RFG a maximum of two periods designated for the RBOB, and to RFG, EPA expects that refiners and between May 1 and September 15. Each maintain records of their blending importers will be producing some RFG period may be no more than 10 operation continue to be necessary in without oxygen and some with ethanol consecutive calendar days. Today’s rule order to ensure compliance with, and or other oxygenates. Mixing ethanol- would implement this provision of the facilitate enforcement of, the emissions blended RFG with non-oxygenated RFG Energy Act. performance standards for RFG has the same potential to create an RVP This provision will typically be used produced by blending oxygenate with ‘‘boost’’ for the non-oxygenated gasoline by retail stations to change from the use RBOB downstream. As a result, these as mixing ethanol-blended RFG with of RFG containing ethanol to RFG not oxygenate blender requirements would RFG blended with other oxygenates. containing ethanol or vice versa. (Such be retained. This is of particular concern regarding a change is usually referred to as a ‘‘tank We anticipate that the effective date RFG because most refiners and turnover.’’) Such blending can result in for the removal of the oxygen importers comply with the RFG VOC additional VOC emissions, perhaps requirement would occur during 2006. emissions performance standard on an resulting in gasoline that does not As a result, refiners, importers and annual average basis calculated at the comply with downstream VOC oxygenate blenders would be subject to point of production or importation. All standards. The Energy Act is unclear as the oxygen standard for the months in downstream parties are prohibited from to when the gasoline in the tank where 2006 prior to the effective date of this marketing RFG which does not comply blending occurs must be in compliance rule. The current regulations allow with a less stringent downstream VOC with the downstream VOC standard. parties to demonstrate compliance standard. However, even though the EPA has already promulgated either on a per-gallon basis or on an combined gasoline may meet the regulations setting out a methodology annual average basis. Parties wishing to downstream VOC standard, combining for making tank turnovers. 40 CFR base their compliance on the per-gallon ethanol-blended RFG with non- 80.78(a)(10). EPA believes retailers and requirements, would be able to oxygenated RFG may cause some wholesale purchaser-consumers should formulate and sell RFG without oxygen gasoline to have VOC emissions which have additional flexibility during the after the effective date of the rule. EPA are higher on average than the gasoline time that they are converting their tanks would interpret its regulations regarding as produced or imported. Thus, today’s from one type of RFG to another, while annual averaging as follows. Parties rule would extend the commingling minimizing the time period during would be able to demonstrate prohibition currently in the fuels which non-compliant gasoline is compliance based on the average oxygen regulations to include a prohibition present in their tanks and being sold. content of RFG during the months prior against combining VOC-controlled Today’s changes would provide to the effective date for the removal of ethanol-blended RFG with VOC- additional flexibility to the regulated the oxygen content requirement. In controlled non-oxygenated RFG during parties by interpreting the Energy Act to addition, any refiner, importer or the period January 1 through September provide retailers and wholesale oxygenate blender who is unable to 15, with one exception, described purchaser-consumers with relief from meet the annual average oxygen below. compliance with the downstream VOC standard in 2006 based on the months The Energy Act contains a provision standard during the ten-day blending prior to the effective date for the which specifically addresses the period, but requiring that the gasoline in removal of the oxygen content combining of ethanol-blended RFG with the tank thereafter be in compliance or requirement would be able to include non-ethanol-blended RFG.6 This new be deemed in compliance with the all of the oxygenated RFG it produces or provision allows retail outlets to sell downstream VOC standard. imports during 2006 in its annual non-ethanol-blended RFG which has To provide assurance that gasoline is average compliance calculations. been combined with ethanol-blended in compliance with the downstream RFG under certain conditions. First, VOC standard after the ten-day period, III. Combining Ethanol Blended RFG we propose that there be two options With Non-Ethanol Blended RFG each batch of gasoline to be blended must have been ‘‘individually certified available for retailers and wholesale As discussed above, Section 211(k) purchaser-consumers. Under the first as in compliance with subsections (h) required RFG to contain a minimum of option, the retailer may add both and (k) prior to being blended.’’ Second, 2.0 weight percent oxygen, and the ethanol-blended RFG and non-ethanol- the retailer must notify EPA prior to current fuels regulations reflect this blended RFG to the same tank an combining the gasolines and identify requirement. Refiners, importers and unlimited number of times during the the exact location of the retail outlet and oxygenate blenders have used different ten-day period, but must test the specific tank in which the gasoline is to oxygenates to meet this requirement. gasoline in the tank at the end of the RFG that contains ethanol must be 6 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–58 ten-day period to make sure that the specially blended to account for the (HR6), section 1513, 119 STAT 594, 1088–1090 RFG is in compliance with the VOC RVP ‘‘boost’’ that ethanol provides, and (2005). standard. Under the second option, the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:42 Feb 21, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM 22FEP1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules 9075

retailer must draw the tank down as dispense gasoline into vehicles, and increases in some emissions and small much as practicable at the start of the EPA interprets the Energy Act reference decreases in others while still meeting ten-day period, before RFG of another to retailers as applying equally to them. the RFG performance standards. These type is added to the tank, and add only As a result, wholesale purchaser- potential impacts are associated with RFG of one type to the tank during the consumers would be treated in the same the degree to which ethanol would ten-day period. That is, the retailer may manner as retailers under this rule. This continue to be blended into RFG after not add both ethanol-blended RFG and is consistent with the manner in which removal of the oxygen requirement. Past non-ethanol-blended RFG to the tank wholesale purchaser-consumers have analyses have projected significant use during the ten-day period, but may add been treated in the past under the fuels of ethanol in RFG in California despite only one of these types of RFG. EPA regulations. removal of the oxygenate requirement.9 believes that when retailers and Most of the provisions of this Given current gasoline prices and the wholesale purchaser-consumers use this proposed rule are necessary to tightness in the gasoline market, the second option it is likely that their implement amendments to the Clean favorable economics of ethanol gasoline will comply with the Air Act included in the Energy Act that blending, a continuing concern over downstream VOC standard at the end of eliminate the RFG oxygen content MTBE use by refiners, the emission the ten-day period, so that testing will requirement and allow limited performance standards still in place for not be necessary. We also believe that commingling of ethanol-blended and RFG, and the upcoming renewable fuels this approach is compatible with non-ethanol-blended RFG. The mandate,10 we believe that ethanol will current practices of most retailers and extension of the general commingling continue to be used in RFG after the wholesale purchaser-consumers, and prohibition in the fuels regulations to oxygen requirement is removed, and expect that most will find it preferable cover non-oxygenated RFG, and the that as MTBE is phased out, it is likely to testing at the end of the ten-day provisions requiring refiners and to be replaced with ethanol to a large period. importers to conduct oversight of degree despite the removal of the The commingling provisions apply at downstream blenders adding oxygen to oxygenate requirement. As a result, we a retail level such that each retailer may RBOB, are necessary because of the believe that the removal of the take advantage of a maximum of two Energy Act amendments, but would be oxygenate mandate would have little or ten-day blending periods between May issued pursuant to authority of CAA no environmental impact in the near 1 and September 15 of each calendar Section 211(k). Both provisions would future. We will be looking at the long year. Thus, the options described above extend current programs to reflect the term effect of oxygenate use in the would be available to each retail outlet presence of non-oxygenated RFG, and context of the rulemaking to implement for each of two ten-day periods during are designed to enhance environmental the renewable fuels mandate. the VOC control period. During each benefits of the RFG program at ten-day period the options would be reasonable cost to regulated parties. V. Statutory and Executive Order available for all tanks at that retail Reviews IV. Environmental Effects of This outlet. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Regarding the requirement that each Action Planning and Review batch of gasoline to be blended must We anticipate that little or no have been individually certified as in environmental impact would occur as a Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR compliance with subsections (h) and (k), result of today’s action to remove the 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency EPA notes that all gasoline in oxygenate requirement for RFG. The must determine whether the regulatory compliance with RFG requirements is RFG standards consist of content and action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore deemed certified under Section 211(k) emission performance standards. subject to OMB review and the pursuant to § 80.40(a). Section 211(h) Refiners and importers would have to requirements of the Executive Order. addresses RVP requirements for continue to meet all the emission The Order defines ‘‘significant gasoline, but EPA does not have a performance standards for RFG whether regulatory action’’ as one that is likely program to certify gasoline as in or not the RFG contains any oxygenate. to result in a rule that may: compliance with this provision. For This includes both the VOC and NOX (1) Have an annual effect on the purposes of the commingling exception emission performance standards, as well economy of $100 million or more or for retail outlets which would be as the air toxics emission performance adversely affect in a material way the incorporated in the regulations at standards which were tightened in the economy, a sector of the economy, § 80.78(a)(8), EPA would deem gasoline mobile source air toxics (MSAT) rule in productivity, competition, jobs, the that is in compliance with the 2001.7 New MSAT standards currently environment, public health or safety, or regulatory requirements implementing under development are anticipated to State, local, or tribal governments or Section 211(h) to be certified under that achieve even greater air toxics emission communities; section. Regarding the requirement that reductions. (2) Create a serious inconsistency or retailers retain and make available to We have analyzed the potential otherwise interfere with an action taken EPA upon request ‘‘certifications’’ impacts on emissions that could result or planned by another agency; accounting for all gasoline at the retail from removal of the oxygenate (3) Materially alter the budgetary outlet, EPA would deem this requirement in the context of requests impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, requirement fulfilled where the retailer for waivers of the Federal oxygen or loan programs or the rights and retains and makes available to EPA, requirement.8 We found that changes in obligations of recipients thereof; or upon request, the product transfer ethanol use could lead to small documentation required under § 80.77 9 Technical Support Document: Analysis of for all gasoline at the retail outlet. 7 66 FR 17230 (March 29, 2001). California’s Request for Waiver of the Reformulated Under today’s proposed rule, the 8 See e.g., California Oxygen Waiver Decision, Gasoline Oxygen Content Requirement for provisions blended RFG would also EPA420–S–05–005 (June 2005); Analysis of and California Covered Areas, EPA420–R–01–016 (June Action on New York Department of Conservation’s 2001). apply to wholesale purchaser- Request for a Waiver of the Oxygen Content 10 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–58 consumers. Like retailers, wholesale Requirement in Federal Reformulated Gasoline, (HR6), section 1501, 119 STAT 594, 1067–1076, purchaser-consumers are parties who EPA420–D–05–06 (June 2005). (2005).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:03 Feb 21, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM 22FEP1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS 9076 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues RFG attest engagement reports: Total Business Administration (SBA) arising out of legal mandates, the 3000 hours, $195,000(25 blenders × 1 regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a President’s priorities, or the principles report/yr × 120 hrs/report × $65/hr) plus small governmental jurisdiction that is a set forth in the Executive Order. $250,000 for purchased services. government of a city, county, town, It has been determined that this The estimated total reduction in school district or special district with a proposed rule does not satisfy the burdens for this rule is 6,125 hours and population of less than 50,000; and (3) criteria stated above. As a result, this $398,125, plus $2,050,000 in purchased a small organization that is any not-for- rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory services. profit enterprise which is independently action’’ under the terms of Executive Small testing costs may be associated owned and operated and is not Order 12866 and is therefore not subject with one of the options for gasoline dominant in its field. to OMB review. Today’s proposed rule retailers to commingle compliance After considering the economic would remove certain requirements for gasolines. However, these testing costs impacts of today’s proposed rule on all refiners, importers and oxygenate are expected to be minimal and would small entities, EPA certifies that this blenders of RFG. Although small be greatly outweighed by the flexibility action would not have a significant additional costs may be incurred by provided by the option to commingle economic impact on a substantial some refiners and importers as a result compliant gasolines. number of small entities. In determining of this rule, on balance, this rule is Burden means the total time, effort, or whether a rule has a significant expected to greatly reduce overall financial resources expended by persons economic impact on a substantial compliance costs for all refiners, to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose number of small entities, the impact of or provide information to or for a importers and oxygenate blenders. This concern is any significant adverse Federal agency. This includes the time rule would also provide options for economic impact on small entities, needed to review instructions; develop, retailers to commingle certain compliant since the primary purpose of the acquire, install, and utilize technology gasoline which otherwise would be regulatory flexibility analyses is to and systems for the purposes of prohibited from being commingled. identify and address regulatory collecting, validating, and verifying Although there may be small alternatives ‘‘which minimize any information, processing and compliance costs associated with one of significant economic impact of the rule maintaining information, and disclosing these options, we believe that the on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. and providing information; adjust the additional flexibility provided by this Thus, an agency may certify that a rule existing ways to comply with any option would reduce overall compliance will not have a significant economic previously applicable instructions and costs for these parties. impact on a substantial number of small requirements; train personnel to be able entities if the rule relieves regulatory B. Paperwork Reduction Act to respond to a collection of burden, or otherwise has a positive The modifications to the RFG information; search data sources; economic effect on all of the small information collection requirements in complete and review the collection of entities subject to the rule. This proposed rule would remove this rule have been submitted for information; and transmit or otherwise certain requirements for all refiners, approval to the Office of Management disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or importers and oxygenate blenders of and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork sponsor, and a person is not required to RFG, including small business refiners, Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. respond to a collection of information importers and oxygenate blenders. The modifications to the RFG unless it displays a currently valid OMB Specifically, this rule would remove the information collection requirements are control number. The OMB control burden on refiners, importers and not enforceable until OMB approves numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 oxygenate blenders to comply with the them. CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When RFG oxygen requirement and associated This rule would have the effect of this ICR is approved by OMB, the compliance requirements. Although in reducing the burdens on certain Agency will publish a technical certain situations some refiners and regulated parties under the reformulated amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the importers, including some small refiners gasoline regulations. All parties Federal Register to display the OMB and importers, may be required to currently subject to the requirement to control number for the approved conduct additional oversight of submit and annual oxygen averaging information collection requirements oxygenate blenders, we believe that the report would no longer be required to contained in this proposed rule. relief from the burden of complying submit such report, resulting in an with the oxygen requirement would estimated total burden reduction of 100 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act more than outweigh the burden of × hours and $6,500 (100 parties 1 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) having to conduct any additional × × report/yr 1 hr/report $65/hr). generally requires an agency to prepare oversight. This rule also would provide Oxygenate blenders currently subject to a regulatory flexibility analysis of any options for gasoline retailers, including the following requirements would no rule subject to notice and comment small gasoline retailers, to commingle longer be subject to these requirements rulemaking requirements under the certain compliant gasoline which and associated burdens: Administrative Procedure Act or any otherwise would be prohibited from RFG batch reports: Total 2500 hours, other statute unless the agency certifies being commingled. Although there may $162,500(25 blenders × 100 reports/yr × that the rule will not have a significant be small compliance costs associated 1 hr/report × $65/hr) plus $600,000 in economic impact on a substantial with one of these options, we believe purchased services; number of small entities. Small entities that the additional flexibility provided RFG annual report: Total 25 hours, include small businesses, small by this option would reduce overall $1,625(25 blenders × 1 report/yr × 1 hr/ organizations, and small governmental compliance costs for these parties. We report × $65/hr); jurisdictions. have therefore concluded that today’s RFG survey reports: Total 500 hours, For purposes of assessing the impacts proposed rule would relieve regulatory $32,500(25 blenders × 1 report/yr × 20 of today’s proposed rule on small burden for all small entities subject to hrs/report × $65/hr) plus $1,200,000 for entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A the RFG regulations. We continue to be purchased services: small business as defined by the Small interested in the potential impacts of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:42 Feb 21, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM 22FEP1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules 9077

proposed rule on small entities and rule would have the overall effect of Indian tribes, or on the distribution of welcome comments on issues related to reducing the burden of the RFG power and responsibilities between the such impacts. regulations on these regulated parties. Federal government and Indian tribes, Therefore, the requirements of the as specified in Executive Order 13175. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to This rule would apply to gasoline Title II of the Unfunded Mandates this action. refiners and importers who supply RFG, Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public and to other parties downstream in the E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Law 104–4, establishes requirements for gasoline distribution system. Today’s Federal agencies to assess the effects of Executive Order 13132, entitled action contains certain modifications to their regulatory actions on State, local, ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, the federal requirements for RFG, and and tribal governments and the private 1999), requires EPA to develop an would not impose any enforceable sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, accountable process to ensure duties on communities of Indian tribal EPA generally must prepare a written ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State governments. Thus, Executive Order statement, including a cost-benefit and local officials in the development of 13175 does not apply to this rule. analysis, for proposed and final rules regulatory policies that have federalism with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of result in expenditures to State, local, federalism implications’’ is defined in Children From Environmental Health and tribal governments, in the aggregate, the Executive Order to include and Safety Risks or to the private sector, of $100 million regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of or more in any one year. Before effects on the States, on the relationship Children from Environmental Health promulgating an EPA rule for which a between the national government and Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, written statement is needed, section 205 the States, or on the distribution of April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: of the UMRA generally requires EPA to power and responsibilities among the (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically identify and consider a reasonable various levels of government.’’ significant’’ as defined under Executive number of regulatory alternatives and This proposed rule does not have Order 12866, and (2) concerns an adopt the least costly, most cost- federalism implications. It would not environmental health or safety risk that effective or least burdensome alternative have substantial direct effects on the EPA has reason to believe may have a that achieves the objectives of the rule. States, on the relationship between the disproportionate effect on children. If The provisions of section 205 do not national government and the States, or the regulatory action meets both criteria, apply when they are inconsistent with on the distribution of power and the Agency must evaluate the applicable law. Moreover, section 205 responsibilities among the various environmental health or safety effects of allows EPA to adopt an alternative other levels of government, as specified in the planned rule on children, and than the least costly, most cost-effective Executive Order 13132. This rule would explain why the planned regulation is or least burdensome alternative if the remove the oxygen standard for RFG preferable to other potentially effective Administrator publishes with the final and provide gasoline retailers the option and reasonably feasible alternatives rule an explanation why that alternative to commingle certain compliance considered by the Agency. was not adopted. Before EPA establishes gasolines that otherwise would be EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 any regulatory requirements that may prohibited from being commingled. The as applying only to those regulatory significantly or uniquely affect small requirements of the rule would be actions that are based on health or safety governments, including tribal enforced by the federal government at risks, such that the analysis required governments, it must have developed the national level. Thus, Executive under the Order has the potential to under section 203 of the UMRA a small Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. influence the regulation. This proposed government agency plan. The plan must rule is not subject to Executive Order provide for notifying potentially F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 13045 because it is not economically affected small governments, enabling and Coordination With Indian Tribal significant and does not establish an officials of affected small governments Governments environmental standard intended to to have meaningful and timely input in Executive Order 13175, entitled mitigate health or safety risks. the development of EPA regulatory ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with H. Executive Order 13211: Acts That proposals with significant Federal Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR Significantly Affect Energy Supply, intergovernmental mandates, and 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA Distribution, or Use informing, educating, and advising to develop an accountable process to small governments on compliance with ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by This proposed rule would not be an the regulatory requirements. tribal officials in the development of economically ‘‘significant energy Today’s proposed rule contains no regulatory policies that have tribal action’’ as defined in Executive Order Federal mandates (under the regulatory implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for implications’’ is defined in the That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, State, local or tribal governments or the Executive Order to include regulations Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May private sector that would result in that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 22, 2001)) because it would not have a expenditures of $100 million or more. one or more Indian tribes, on the significant adverse effect on the supply, This proposed rule would affect relationship between the Federal distribution, or use of energy. This rule gasoline refiners, importers and government and the Indian tribes, or on would eliminate the oxygen content oxygenate blenders by removing the the distribution of power and requirement for RFG and associated oxygen content requirement for RFG responsibilities between the Federal compliance requirements. This change and associated compliance government and Indian tribes.’’ would have the effect of reducing requirements. This rule also would This proposed rule does not have burdens on suppliers of RFG, which, in allow gasoline retailers an option to tribal implications. It would not have turn, may have a positive effect on commingle certain compliant gasoline substantial direct effects on tribal gasoline supplies. RFG refiners and which otherwise would be prohibited governments, on the relationship blenders may continue to use from being commingled. As a result, this between the Federal government and oxygenates at their discretion where and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:42 Feb 21, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM 22FEP1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS 9078 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules

when it is most economical to do so. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Federal Communications Commission. With the implementation of the COMMISSION John A. Karousos, renewable fuels standard also contained Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media in the Energy Act, the blending of 47 CFR Part 73 Bureau. ethanol, in particular, into gasoline is [FR Doc. 06–1518 Filed 2–21–06; 8:45 am] expected to increase considerably, not [DA 06–271; MB Docket No. 04–410, RM– BILLING CODE 6712–01–P decrease. Therefore, despite this action 11109] to remove the oxygenate mandate in Radio Broadcasting Services; RFG, when viewed in the context of FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Woodson, TX COMMISSION companion energy legislation, overall use of oxygenates is expected to AGENCY: Federal Communications 47 CFR Part 73 increase in the future. This rule also Commission. would allow gasoline retailers to [DA 06–272; MB Docket No. 06–19; RM– ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal. 11288 commingle certain compliant gasolines which otherwise would be prohibited SUMMARY: The Audio Division dismisses Radio Broadcasting Services; from being commingled. This also may a Petition for Rule Making filed by Hattiesburg and Sumrall, MS have a positive effect on gasoline Charles Crawford, requesting the supplies. allotment of Channel 298A at Woodson, AGENCY: Federal Communications Texas, as the community’s first local Commission. I. National Technology Transfer and aural transmission service. Charles ACTION: Proposed rule. Advancement Act Crawford withdrew his petition for SUMMARY: rulemaking. Katherine Pyeatt filed a This document requests Section 12(d) of the National timely counterproposal to this petition, comments on a Petition for Rule Making Technology Transfer and Advancement proposing to allot Channel 248A at three filed by Unity Broadcasting requesting to upgrade Channel 226A, FM Station Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law communities, Woodson, Chillicothe and WGDQ, to Channel 226C3 and to reallot 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 Henrietta, Texas, with a channel Channel 226C3 to Sumrall, Mississippi, note) directs EPA to use voluntary substitution at Archer City, Texas. as that community’s second local aural consensus standards in its regulatory Subsequently, Katherine Pyeatt also transmission service. To accommodate activities unless to do so would be withdrew her counterproposal. See 69 this allotment, Petitioner requested the inconsistent with applicable law or FR 67882, November 11, 2004. No other reclassification of FM Station WUSW, otherwise impractical. Voluntary party filed comments supporting the Channel 279C, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, consensus standards are technical allotment of Channel 298A at Woodson, to specify operation on Channel 279C0 standards (e.g., materials specifications, Texas. It is the Commission’s policy to pursuant to the reclassification test methods, sampling procedures, and refrain from making a new allotment or procedures adopted by the Commission. business practices) that are developed or reservation to a community absent an See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review— expression of interest. adopted by voluntary consensus Streamlining of Radio Technical Rules standards bodies. The NTTAA directs ADDRESSES: Federal Communications in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission’s EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Rules, 65 FR 79773 (December 20, explanations when the Agency decides Washington, DC 20554. 2000). The licensee of Station WUSW not to use available and applicable FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: did not respond to an Order to Show voluntary consensus standards. Victoria M. McCauley, Media Bureau, Cause why Station WUSW should not This proposed rule does not establish (202) 418–2180. be downgraded from Channel 279C to new technical standards within the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a Channel 279C0. Therefore, the meaning of the NTTAA. Therefore, EPA synopsis of the Commission’s Report Commission has reclassified Station did not consider the use of any and Order, MB Docket No. 04–410, WUSW to Channel 279C0. Channel voluntary consensus standards. adopted February 2, 2006, and released 226C3 can be allotted with a site February 6, 2006. The full text of this restriction of 19.5 kilometers (12.1 VI. Statutory Provisions and Legal Commission decision is available for miles) northeast of Sumrall, at reference Authority inspection and copying during regular coordinates of 31–33–15 NL and 89–24– 50 WL. The statutory authority for the actions business hours at the FCC’s Reference DATES: Comments must be filed on or in today’s proposed rule comes from Information Center, Portals II, 445 before March 30, 2006, and reply sections 211(c), 211(k) and 301(a) of the Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY–A257, and Washington, DC 20554. The comments on or before April 14, 2006. CAA. complete text of this decision may also Any counterproposal filed in this List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80 be purchased from the Commission’s proceeding need only protect FM duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Station WUSW, Hattiesburg, Environmental protection, Air Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Mississippi, Channel 279C, as a Class pollution control, Fuel additives, Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20054, C0 allotment. Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, telephone 1–800–378–3160 or http:// ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Reporting and recordkeeping www.BCPIWEB.com. This document is Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., requirements. not subject to the Congressional Review Washington, DC 20554. In addition to Dated: February 14, 2006. Act. (The Commission, is, therefore, not filing comments with the FCC, required to submit a copy of this Report interested parties should serve the Stephen L. Johnson, and Order to GAO, pursuant to the petitioner’s counsel as follows: Jerrold Administrator. Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. Miller, Esq, Miller and Neely, P.C.; 6900 [FR Doc. 06–1611 Filed 2–21–06; 8:45 am] 801(a)(1)(A) because the proposed rule Wisconsin Ave., Suite 704; Bethesda, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P was dismissed. Maryland 20815.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:42 Feb 21, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22FEP1.SGM 22FEP1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS