462 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

Category NAICS1

Codes SIC 2 Codes Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry ...................................................

Industry ...................................................

Industry ...................................................

Industry ...................................................

Industry ...................................................

Industry ...................................................

Industry ...................................................

324110 

325193 

325199 

424690 

424710 

424720 

454319 

2911 

2869 

2869 

5169 

5171 

5172 

5989 

Petroleum Refineries. 

Ethyl alcohol manufacturing. 

Other basic organic chemical manufacturing. 

Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers. 

Petroleum bulk stations and terminals. 

Petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers. 

Other fuel dealers. 

1 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

2Standard 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 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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: 

Æ Thermochemical pyrolysis. 

Æ Thermochemical gasification. 

Æ Biochemical direct fermentation. 

Æ Biochemical fermentation with 

catalytic upgrading. 

Æ 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 § 80.1426 and 

assigns each pathway one or more DCodes. 

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 soybased 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 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
464 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

is based on the fact that our analysis 

shows that even when all of the coproducts are used to generate RINs the 

lifecycle GHG emissions for RINgenerating 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 § 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. 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 coproducts produced. This is the case for 

most of the original feedstocks included 

in Table 1 to § 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 § 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 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 onsite 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 reproposing 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. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
466 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

45 CFR Part 1355 

Notice of Tribal Consultation Meetings 

Regarding How the Current SACWIS 

Regulations Affect Tribes 

Administering a Title IV–E Program 

AGENCY: Children’s Bureau, ACYF, ACF, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of Tribal Consultation. 

SUMMARY: Title IV–E rules provide 

Federal Financial Participation (FFP) 

through a beneficial cost allocation 

methodology if a State or Tribe 

implements a comprehensive Statewide 

Automated Child Welfare Information 

System (SACWIS) to track and manage 

child protection, foster care and 

adoption assistance activities. With the 

continuing implementation of the 

Fostering Connections to Success and 

Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Pub. 

L. 110–351) we wish to analyze the 

impact of the State-centric SACWIS 

rules on Tribes and Tribal child welfare 

agencies, to determine if Tribes have 

sufficient flexibility and latitude to 

build information systems that will 

meet their business needs. 

The Children’s Bureau’s (CB) Division 

of State Systems (DSS) has been 

assigned responsibility to undertake 

consultation with Tribes in this area. To 

offer Tribes the opportunity for 

informed comment on the implications 

that the State-centric rules have on their 

ability to build and operate information 

systems that will support their title IV– 

E programs, we will provide an 

education session on the SACWIS 

regulations. This will be followed by a 

consultation to listen to the concerns 

and ideas from Tribal leaders and their 

representatives about the existing 

SACWIS rules and how CB can support 

title IV–E Tribal agencies in building 

information systems that will meet their 

business needs. We propose two such 

combined meetings via teleconferences 

to reach a broad audience of interested 

parties. The teleconference on February 

15, 2012, is intended for consultation 

with Tribal leaders; the teleconference 

on February 16, 2012, is intended to 

engage in consultation with their 

representatives. 

DATES: The meeting dates and times for 

teleconferences are: 

• February 15, from 1–3 p.m. EST. 

• February 16, from 3–5 p.m. EST. 

Access information for these 

teleconferences is in the Supplementary 

Information section. 

Written comments must be submitted 

to the office listed in the ADDRESSES

section below on or before April 6, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments about this topic by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: DSSComments@acf.hhs.gov. 

Please include ‘‘Comments on Tribal 

Consultation’’ in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Mail or Courier Delivery: Terry 

Watt, Director, Division of State 

Systems, Children’s Bureau, 

Administration on Children, Youth and 

Families, Administration for Children 

and Families, 1250 Maryland Avenue 

SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. 

If you choose to use an express, 

overnight, or other special delivery 

method, please verify first that they are 

able to deliver to the above address 

during the normal workweek. We 

encourage you to submit comments 

electronically so that they are received 

in a timely manner. All comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov including 

any personal information provided. 

Written comments and comments 

provided during consultation will 

receive equal consideration by CB. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this process, 

or want further information about 

current Federal regulations governing 

child welfare automation, please contact 

Mr. Peter Howe, John F. Kennedy 

Federal Building, Room 2000 West, 15 

New Sudbury Street, Boston, MA 02203; 

voice: (617) 565–1515; by email at: 

peter.howe@acf.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Teleconferences: The teleconference 

on February 15, 2012 at 1 p.m. EST is 

reserved for Tribal leaders; the 

teleconference on February 16, 2012 at 

3 p.m. EST is intended for their 

representatives. Access information for 

these teleconferences is as follows: 

February 15 call in: (888) 989–8183; 

Password: 368–9268. 

February 16 call in: (888) 673–9785; 

Password: 621–8061. 

The teleconferences will be recorded, 

and a summary of the content will be 

published within 45 days of the 

February 16, 2012 call. 

SACWIS Background: Sections 

474(a)(3)(C) and (D) of the Social 

Security Act (the Act) provide States, 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS