
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 462-467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31577]



[[Page 462]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542; FRL-9502-1]
RIN 2060-AR07


Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Identification of 
Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways Under the Renewable Fuel 
Standard Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a proposed rule that identifies additional fuel 
pathways that EPA has determined meet the biomass-based diesel, 
advanced biofuel or cellulosic biofuel lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) 
reduction requirements specified in Clean Air Act section 211(o), the 
Renewable Fuel Standard Program, as amended by the Energy Independence 
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). This proposed rule describes EPA's 
evaluation of biofuels produced from camelina oil, energy cane, giant 
reed, and napiergrass; it also includes an evaluation of renewable 
gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstocks, as well as biodiesel from 
esterification, and clarifies our definition of renewable diesel.
    This proposed rule adds these pathways to Table in regulations as 
pathways which have been determined to meet one or more of the GHG 
reduction thresholds specified in CAA 211(o), and assigns each pathway 
a corresponding D-Code. It allows producers or importers of fuel 
produced pursuant to these pathways to generate Renewable 
Identification Numbers (RINs), providing that the fuel meets the other 
requirements specified in the RFS regulations to qualify it as 
renewable fuel.

DATES: Written comments must be received by February 6, 2012. A request 
for a public hearing must be received by January 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0542, by mail to Air and Radiation Docket, Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0542, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6406J, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 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: Vincent Camobreco, Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality (MC6401A), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 
number: (202) 564-9043; fax number: (202) 564-1686; email address: 
camobreco.vincent@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Why is EPA issuing a proposed rule?

    This document proposes to take action to identify additional 
qualifying renewable fuel pathways under the Renewable Fuel Standard 
Program. We have published a direct final rule that describes our 
rationale for identifying these additional fuel pathways, including GHG 
lifecycle analyses, 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 EPA receives relevant adverse comment or a 
hearing request on a distinct provision of this rulemaking, we will 
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which 
portion of the rule is being withdrawn. Any distinct amendment, 
paragraph, or section of today's rule not withdrawn will become 
effective on the date set out in the direct final rule. We will address 
all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed 
rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any 
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further 
information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of 
this document.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action are those involved 
with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels, 
including gasoline and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such as ethanol 
and biodiesel. Regulated categories and entities affected by this 
action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                NAICS \1\                     Examples of potentially regulated
                  Category                        Codes       SIC \2\ Codes                entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................          324110            2911  Petroleum Refineries.
Industry...................................          325193            2869  Ethyl alcohol manufacturing.
Industry...................................          325199            2869  Other basic organic chemical
Industry...................................          424690            5169   manufacturing.
Industry...................................          424710            5171  Chemical and allied products
Industry...................................          424720            5172   merchant wholesalers.
Industry...................................          454319            5989  Petroleum bulk stations and
                                                                              terminals.
                                                                             Petroleum and petroleum products
                                                                              merchant wholesalers.
                                                                             Other fuel dealers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\2\ Standard 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 information claimed as CBI. Do not submit information 
you claim as CBI to EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. 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

[[Page 463]]

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. Identification of Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways 
Under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program

    EPA is issuing a proposed rule to identify in the RFS regulations 
additional renewable fuel production pathways that we have determined 
meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction requirements of the RFS 
program. This proposed rule describes EPA's evaluation of:

Camelina oil (new feedstock)
     Biodiesel and renewable diesel (including jet fuel and 
heating oil)--qualifying as biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel.
     Naphtha and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)--qualifying as 
advanced biofuel.
Energy cane, giant reed, and napiergrass cellulosic biomass (new 
feedstocks)
     Ethanol, renewable diesel (including renewable jet fuel 
and heating oil), and naphtha--qualifying as cellulosic biofuel.
Renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock (new fuel types)
     Produced from crop residue, slash, pre-commercial 
thinnings, tree residue, annual cover crops, and cellulosic components 
of separated yard waste, separated food waste, and separated municipal 
solid waste (MSW).
     Using the following processes--all utilizing natural gas, 
biogas, and/or biomass as the only process energy sources--qualifying 
as cellulosic biofuel:
    [cir] Thermochemical pyrolysis.
    [cir] Thermochemical gasification.
    [cir] Biochemical direct fermentation.
    [cir] Biochemical fermentation with catalytic upgrading.
    [cir] Any other process that uses biogas and/or biomass as the only 
process energy sources.
Esterification (new production process)
     Process used to produce biodiesel from soy bean oil, oil 
from annual covercrops, algal oil, biogenic waste oils/fats/greases, 
non-food grade corn oil, Canola/rapeseed oil, and camelina oil--
qualifying as biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel.

    This proposed rule adds these pathways to Table 1 to Sec.  80.1426 
and assigns each pathway one or more D-Codes.
    Determining whether a fuel pathway satisfies the CAA's lifecycle 
GHG reduction thresholds for renewable fuels requires a comprehensive 
evaluation of the lifecycle GHG emissions of the renewable fuel as 
compared to the lifecycle GHG emissions of the baseline gasoline or 
diesel fuel that it replaces. As mandated by CAA section 211(o), the 
GHG emissions assessments must evaluate the aggregate quantity of GHG 
emissions (including direct emissions and significant indirect 
emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes) related 
to the full fuel lifecycle, including all stages of fuel and feedstock 
production, distribution, and use by the ultimate consumer.
    In examining the full lifecycle GHG impacts of renewable fuels for 
the RFS program, EPA considers the following:
     Feedstock production--based on agricultural sector models 
that include direct and indirect impacts of feedstock production.
     Fuel production--including process energy requirements, 
impacts of any raw materials used in the process, and benefits from co-
products produced.
     Fuel and feedstock distribution--including impacts of 
transporting feedstock from production to use, and transport of the 
final fuel to the consumer.
     Use of the fuel--including combustion emissions from use 
of the fuel in a vehicle.
    Many of the pathways evaluated in this proposal rely on a 
comparison to the lifecycle GHG analysis work that was done as part of 
the Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Final Rule, published March 
26, 2010.
    More information on the different pathways evaluated is included 
below. For additional information on our GHG lifecycle analyses for 
this proposal, as well as the text of the proposed regulatory changes, 
see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this 
Federal Register.
    Camelina: Current information suggests that camelina has limited 
niche markets and will be produced on land that would otherwise remain 
fallow. Therefore, increased production of camelina-based renewable 
fuel is not expected to result in significant land use change 
emissions. For the purposes of this proposed analysis, EPA is 
projecting there will be no land use emissions associated with camelina 
production for use as a renewable fuel feedstock.
    Taking into account the assumption of no land use change emissions 
when camelina is used to produce renewable fuel, and considering that 
other sources of GHG emissions related to camelina biodiesel or 
renewable diesel production have comparable GHG emissions to biodiesel 
from soybean oil, we are proposing that camelina-based biodiesel and 
renewable diesel should be treated in the same manner as soy-based 
biodiesel and renewable diesel in qualifying as biomass-based diesel 
and advanced biofuel for purposes of RIN generation since the GHG 
emission performance of the camelina-based fuels will be at least as 
good and in some respects better than that modeled for fuels made from 
soybean oil. EPA found as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard final 
rulemaking that soybean biodiesel resulted in a 57% reduction in GHG 
emissions compared to the baseline petroleum diesel fuel. Furthermore, 
approximately 80% of the lifecycle impacts from soybean biodiesel were 
from land use change emissions which are assumed to be not significant 
for the camelina pathway considered. Thus, EPA is proposing to include 
camelina oil as a potential feedstock under the same biodiesel and 
renewable diesel pathways for which soybean oil currently qualifies. We 
are also proposing to include a pathway for jet fuel, naphtha, and LPG 
produced from camelina oil through hydrotreating. This

[[Page 464]]

is based on the fact that our analysis shows that even when all of the 
co-products are used to generate RINs the lifecycle GHG emissions for 
RIN-generating co-products including diesel replacement fuel, jet fuel, 
naphtha and LPG produced from camelina oil will all meet the 50% GHG 
emissions reduction threshold.
    We are also proposing that two existing pathways for RIN generation 
in the RFS regulations that list ``renewable diesel'' as a fuel product 
produced through a hydrotreating process include jet fuel. This applies 
to two pathways in Table 1 to Sec.  80.1426 of the RFS regulations 
which both list renewable diesel made from soy bean oil, oil from 
annual covercrops, algal oil, biogenic waste oils/fats/greases, or non-
food grade corn oil using hydrotreating as a process. We are proposing 
that if parties produce jet fuel from the hydrotreating process and co-
process renewable biomass and petroleum they can generate advanced 
biofuel RINs (D code 5) for the jet fuel produced. We are also 
proposing that if they do not co-process renewable biomass and 
petroleum they can generate biomass-based diesel RINs (D code 4) for 
the jet fuel produced.
    Sec.  80.1401 of the RFS regulations currently defines non-ester 
renewable diesel as a fuel that is not a mono-alkyl ester and which can 
be used in an engine designed to operate on conventional diesel fuel or 
be heating oil or jet fuel. The reference to jet fuel in this 
definition was added by direct final rule dated May 10, 2010. Table 1 
to Sec.  80.1426 identifies approved fuel pathways by fuel type, 
feedstock source and fuel production processes. The table, which was 
largely adopted as part of the March 26, 2010 RFS2 final rule, 
identifies jet fuel and renewable diesel as separate fuel types. 
Accordingly, in light of the revised definition of renewable diesel 
enacted after the RFS2 rule, there is ambiguity regarding the extent to 
which references in Table 1 to ``renewable diesel'' include jet fuel.
    The original lifecycle analysis for the renewable diesel from 
hydrotreating pathways listed in Table 1 to Sec.  80.1426 was not based 
on producing jet fuel but rather other transportation diesel fuel 
products, namely a diesel fuel replacement. As discussed in the direct 
final rule, the hydrotreating process can produce a mix of products 
including jet fuel, diesel, naphtha, LPG and propane. Also, as 
discussed, there are differences in the process configured for maximum 
jet fuel production vs. the process maximized for diesel fuel 
production and the lifecycle results vary depending on what approach is 
used to consider co-products (i.e., the allocation or displacement 
approach).
    In cases where there are no pathways for generating RINs for the 
co-products from the hydrotreating process it would be appropriate to 
use the displacement method for capturing the credits of co-products 
produced. This is the case for most of the original feedstocks included 
in Table 1 to Sec.  80.1426. If the displacement approach is used when 
jet fuel is the primary product produced it results in lower emissions 
then the production maximized for diesel fuel production. Therefore, 
since the hydrotreating process maximized for diesel fuel meets the 50% 
lifecycle GHG threshold for the feedstocks in question, the process 
maximized for jet fuel would also qualify.
    Thus, we are proposing that the references to ``renewable diesel'' 
in Table 1 include jet fuel, consistent with our regulatory definition 
of ``non-ester renewable diesel,'' since doing so clarifies the 
existing regulations while ensuring that Table 1 to Sec.  80.1426 
appropriately identifies fuel pathways that meet the GHG reduction 
thresholds associated with each pathway.
    We note that although the definition of renewable diesel includes 
jet fuel and heating oil, we are also proposing to list in Table 1 of 
section 80.1426 of the RFS2 regulations jet fuel and heating oil as 
specific co-products in addition to listing renewable diesel to assure 
clarity. This clarification also pertains to all the feedstocks already 
included in Table 1 for renewable diesel.
    Energy grasses: Based on our comparison of switchgrass and the 
three feedstocks considered here, EPA is proposing that cellulosic 
biofuel produced from the cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin portions 
of energy cane, giant reed, and napiergrass has similar or better 
lifecycle GHG impacts than biofuel produced from the cellulosic biomass 
from switchgrass. Our proposed analysis suggests that the three 
feedstocks considered have GHG impacts associated with growing and 
harvesting the feedstock that are similar to switchgrass. Emissions 
from growing and harvesting energy cane are approximately 4 kg CO2eq/
mmBtu higher than switchgrass, emissions from growing and harvesting 
giant reed are approximately 2 kg CO2eq/mmBtu lower than switchgrass, 
and emissions from growing and harvesting napiergrass are approximately 
6 kg CO2eq/mmBtu higher than switchgrass. These are small changes in 
the overall lifecycle, representing at most a 6% change in the energy 
grass lifecycle impacts in comparison to the petroleum fuel baseline. 
Furthermore, the three feedstocks considered are expected to have 
similar or lower GHG emissions than switchgrass associated with other 
components of the biofuel lifecycle.
    As a hypothetical worst case, if the calculated increases in 
growing and harvesting the new feedstocks are incorporated into the 
lifecycle GHG emissions calculated for switchgrass, and other lifecycle 
components are projected as having similar GHG impacts to switchgrass 
(including land use change associated with switchgrass production), the 
overall lifecycle GHG reductions for biofuel produced from energy cane, 
giant reed, and napiergrass still meet the 60% reduction threshold for 
cellulosic biofuel, the lowest being a 64% reduction (for napiergrass 
F-T diesel) compared to the petroleum baseline. We believe these are 
conservative estimates, as use of energy cane, giant reed, or 
napiergrass as a feedstock is expected to have smaller land-use GHG 
impacts than switchgrass, due to their higher yields.
    Although this analysis assumes energy cane, giant reed, and 
napiergrass biofuels produced for sale and use in the United States 
will most likely come from domestically produced feedstock, we also 
intend for the proposed pathways to cover energy cane, giant reed, and 
napiergrass from other countries. We do not expect incidental amounts 
of biofuels from feedstocks produced in other nations to impact our 
average GHG emissions. Moreover, other countries most likely to be 
exporting energy cane, giant reed, or napiergrass or biofuels produced 
from these feedstocks are likely to be major producers which typically 
use similar cultivars and farming techniques. Therefore, GHG emissions 
from producing biofuels with energy cane, giant reed, or napiergrass 
grown in other countries should be similar to the GHG emissions we 
estimated for U.S. energy cane, giant reed, or napiergrass, though they 
could be slightly (and insignificantly) higher or lower. For example, 
the renewable biomass provisions under the Energy Independence and 
Security Act would prohibit direct conversion of previously unfarmed 
land in other countries into cropland for energy grass-based renewable 
fuel production. Furthermore, any energy grass production on existing 
cropland internationally would not be expected to have land use impacts 
beyond what was considered for switchgrass production. Even if there 
were unexpected larger differences, EPA believes the small amounts of 
feedstock or fuel potentially coming from other

[[Page 465]]

countries will not impact our threshold analysis.
    Based on our assessment of switchgrass in the RFS2 final rule and 
this comparison of GHG emissions from switchgrass and energy cane, 
giant reed, and napiergrass, we do not expect variations to be large 
enough to bring the overall GHG impact of fuel made from energy cane, 
giant reed or napier grass to come close to the 60% threshold for 
cellulosic biofuel. Therefore, EPA is proposing to include cellulosic 
biofuel produced from the cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin portions 
of energy cane, giant reed, and napiergrass under the same pathways for 
which cellulosic biomass from switchgrass qualifies under the RFS2 
final rule.
    Renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock: Three 
renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock pathways were 
compared to baseline petroleum gasoline, using the same value for 
baseline gasoline as in the RFS2 final rule analysis. The results of 
the proposed analysis indicate that the renewable gasoline and 
renewable gasoline blendstock pathways result in a GHG emissions 
reduction of 65-129% or better compared to the gasoline fuel it would 
replace using corn stover as a feedstock. Since the renewable gasoline 
and renewable gasoline blendstock pathways which use corn stover as a 
feedstock all exceed the 60% lifecycle GHG threshold requirements for 
cellulosic biofuel, and since these pathways capture the likely current 
technologies and since future technology improvements are likely to 
increase efficiency and lower GHG emissions, we are proposing that all 
processes producing renewable gasoline or renewable gasoline blendstock 
from corn stover can qualify if they fall in the following process 
characterizations:
     Catalytic pyrolysis and upgrading utilizing natural gas, 
biogas, and/or biomass as the only process energy sources.
     Gasification and upgrading utilizing natural gas, biogas, 
and/or biomass as the only process energy sources.
     Direct fermentation utilizing natural gas, biogas, and/or 
biomass as the only process energy sources.
     Fermentation and upgrading utilizing natural gas, biogas, 
and/or biomass as the only process energy sources.
     Any process utilizing biogas and/or biomass as the only 
process energy sources.
    As was the case for extending corn stover results to other 
feedstocks in the RFS2 final rule, we are proposing to extend these 
results to feedstocks with similar or lower GHG emissions profiles, 
including the following feedstocks:
     Cellulosic biomass from crop residue, slash, pre-
commercial thinnings and tree residue, annual cover crops;
     Cellulosic components of separated yard waste;
     Cellulosic components of separated food waste; and
     Cellulosic components of separated MSW.
    For more information on the reasoning for extension to these other 
feedstocks refer to the feedstock production and distribution section 
or the RFS2 rulemaking (75 FR 14793-14795).
    Based on these results, today's proposed rule includes pathways for 
the generation of cellulosic biofuel RINs for renewable gasoline or 
renewable gasoline blendstock produced by catalytic pyrolysis and 
upgrading, gasification and upgrading, direct fermentation, 
fermentation and upgrading, all utilizing natural gas, biogas, and/or 
biomass as the only on-site process energy sources or any process 
utilizing biogas and/or biomass as the only on-site energy sources, and 
using corn stover as a feedstock or the feedstocks noted above. In 
order to qualify for RIN generation, the fuel must meet the other 
definitional criteria for renewable fuel (e.g., produced from renewable 
biomass, and used to reduce or replace petroleum-based transportation 
fuel, heating oil or jet fuel) specified in the Clean Air Act and the 
RFS regulations.
    Direct Esterification: Using the same methodology as was used for 
the yellow grease modeling under RFS2, but using high energy and 
materials use assumptions and omitting the glycerin co-product credit, 
we estimate the GHG emissions reduction for the esterification of 
specified feedstocks with any level of FFA process is -71%. Since the 
GHG threshold is at -50% for biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel, 
we believe that there is a large enough margin in the results to 
reasonably conclude that biodiesel using esterification of specified 
feedstocks with any level of FFA content meets the biomass-based diesel 
and advanced biofuel 50% lifecycle GHG reduction threshold. Therefore, 
we are proposing to include the process ``esterification'' as an 
approved biodiesel production process in Table 1 to Sec.  40 CFR 
80.1426. In addition, consistent with the modeling conducted for RFS2, 
we are proposing to interpret the RFS regulations as they existed prior 
to today's rule as including a direct esterification process as part of 
the biodiesel pathways for which only ``trans-esterification'' was 
specifically referenced in Table 1 to Sec.  40 CFR 80.1426.

V. Additional Changes to Listing of Available Pathways in Table 1 of 
80.1426

    We are also proposing two changes to Table 1 to 80.1426 that were 
proposed on July 1, 2011 (76 FR 38844). The first change adds ID 
letters to pathways to facilitate references to specific pathways. The 
second change adds ``rapeseed'' to the existing pathway for renewable 
fuel made from canola oil.
    On September 28, 2010, EPA published a ``Supplemental Determination 
for Renewable Fuels Produced Under the Final RFS2 Program from Canola 
Oil'' (FR Vol. 75, No. 187, pg 59622-59634). In the July 1, 2011 NPRM 
(76 FR 38844) we proposed to clarify two aspects of the supplemental 
determination. First we proposed to amend the regulatory language in 
Table 1 to Sec.  80.1426 to clarify that the currently-approved pathway 
for canola also applies more generally to rapeseed. While ``canola'' 
was specifically described as the feedstock evaluated in the 
supplemental determination, we had not intended the supplemental 
determination to cover just those varieties or sources of rapeseed that 
are identified as canola, but to all rapeseed. As described in the July 
1, 2011 NPRM, we currently interpret the reference to ``canola'' in 
Table 1 to Sec.  80.1426 to include any rapeseed. To eliminate 
ambiguity caused by the current language, however, we proposed to 
replace the term ``canola'' in that table with the term ``canola/
rapeseed''. Canola is a type of rapeseed. While the term ``canola'' is 
often used in the American continent and in Australia, the term 
``rapeseed'' is often used in Europe and other countries to describe 
the same crop. We received no adverse comments on our July 1, 2011 
proposal but are re-proposing it here in case we receive adverse 
comment in response to the direct final rule also published today.
    Second, we wish to clarify that although the GHG emissions of 
producing fuels from canola feedstock grown in the U.S. and Canada was 
specifically modeled as the most likely source of canola (or rapeseed) 
oil used for biodiesel produced for sale and use in the U.S., we also 
intended that the approved pathway cover canola/rapeseed oil from other 
countries, and we propose to interpret our regulations in that manner. 
We expect the vast majority of biodiesel used in the U.S.

[[Page 466]]

and produced from canola/rapeseed oil will come from U.S. and Canadian 
crops. Incidental amounts from crops produced in other nations will not 
impact our average GHG emissions. Therefore, EPA proposes to interpret 
the approved canola pathway as covering canola/rapeseed regardless of 
country origin.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
The corrections, clarifications, and modifications to the final RFS2 
regulations contained in this rule are within the scope of the 
information collection requirements submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for the final RFS2 regulations.
    OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained 
in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 80, subpart M under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and 
has assigned OMB control numbers 2060-0637 and 2060-0640. 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 this action on small 
entities, I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
proposed rule will not impose any new requirements on small entities. 
The relatively minor corrections and modifications this proposed rule 
makes to the final RFS2 regulations do not impact small entities. We 
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the rule on small 
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

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. We have determined that this action will not result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for the above parties and thus, 
this rule 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, diesel, and renewable fuel producers, importers, 
distributors and marketers and makes relatively minor corrections and 
modifications to the RFS2 regulations.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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 only applies to 
gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuel producers, importers, distributors 
and marketers and makes relatively minor corrections and modifications 
to the RFS2 regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 
this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action 
from State and local officials.

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, diesel, and renewable fuel producers, importers, distributors 
and marketers. This action makes relatively minor corrections and 
modifications to the RFS regulations, and does not impose any 
enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Nonetheless, EPA 
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from 
tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 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 EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 
13045 because it does 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 proposed rule 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, 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 action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

[[Page 467]]

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 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 proposed rule 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 amendments would not relax the control measures on 
sources regulated by the RFS regulations and therefore would not cause 
emissions increases from these sources.

VII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for the rule finalized today can be found in 
section 211 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545. Additional support 
for the procedural and compliance related aspects of today's rule, 
including the recordkeeping requirements, come from Sections 114, 208, 
and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7542, and 7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Agriculture, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, 
Diesel Fuel, Energy, Forest and Forest Products, Fuel additives, 
Gasoline, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, 
Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-31577 Filed 1-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


