[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 462-467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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:
[email protected].
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