[Federal Register: October 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 209)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61296-61297]
[DOCID:fr30oc07-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2005-22492; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-020]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; St. Marys, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E Airspace at St. Marys, PA to
provide adequate airspace for a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Special Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP)
that has been developed to serve the Elk Regional Medical Center
(7PS9), St. Marys, PA.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 20, 2007. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before November 28, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the docket number
FAA-2005-22492; Airspace Docket 05-AEA-020, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
 You may review the public docket containing the

rule, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the
Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal
Aviation Administration, Room C210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist,
System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404)
305-5581.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current and
is unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. Unless a written
adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an
adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the
regulation will become effective on the date specified above. Afer the
close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the
Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments were
received and confirming the effective date. If the FAA receives, within
the comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice
of intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct
final rule will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of
proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.

Comments Invited

    Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was
not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are
invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify both
docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified
under the caption ADDRESSES. All communications received on or before
the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be
amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports
the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in
evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether
additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted
will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments,
in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Commenters
wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in
response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on
which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-
2005-22492; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-020.'' The postcard will be date
stamped and returned to the commenter.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E airspace at St. Marys, PA establishing the
controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV helicopter Point
in Space (PinS) approach at Elk Regional Medical Center. A new Copter
RNAV 095 Point in Space (PinS) Special IAP serving the Elk Regional
Medical Center has been developed. Controlled airspace extending upward
from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is required to encompass the IAP
and for Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations, therefore, the FAA is
amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to
establish additional Class E5 Airspace at St. Marys, PA. The current E5
airspace at St. Marys does not provide adequate airspace for this new
approach. This action provides the required controlled airspace.
Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet
or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order
7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Agency Findings

    The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct
effect 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. Therefore, it
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Elk Regional Medical Center,
St. Marys, PA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AEA PA E5 St. Marys, PA [Amended]

St. Marys Municipal Airport, PA
    (Lat. 41[deg]24'45'' N., long. 78[deg]30'09'' W.)
Elk Regional Medical Center Point In Space Coordinates [Added]
    (Lat. 41[deg]26'09'' N., long. 78[deg]34'20'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of St. Marys Municipal Airport and within
3.1 miles each side of a 091[deg] bearing from the center of the St.
Marys Municipal Airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 8.7
miles east of the airport; and that airspace within a 6-mile radius
of the point in space (lat. 41[deg]26'09'' N., long. 78[deg]34'20''
W.) serving the Elk Regional Medical Center.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 5, 2007.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center.
[FR Doc. 07-5327 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


provide qualitative assessments and reasonable expectations of trends
which can be used to consider the environmental impacts of increases in
biodiesel production and use. These trends are only summarized here
while the final report provides extensive detail.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). February 2012.
``Biofuels and the Environment: First Triennial Report to
Congress.'' Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/
600/R-10/183F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The assessment focuses on the use of oil from soybeans as the
feedstock for biodiesel production. Other oil seed feedstock sources
represent a very small portion of biofuel production in 2013 so will be
expected to have much less of an impact than soy oil. Corn oil
extracted during the ethanol production process is increasing, adding a
small increment of supply for biofuel production by 2013 that will
offset demands for soy and other oil seed crops, thus reducing
potential agricultural impact of biodiesel production. Corn as a
feedstock for biofuel production is driven primarily by the demand for
corn ethanol, not the demand for the corn ethanol co-product of
extracted, non-food grade corn oil. Therefore the impact of the supply
of extracted corn oil is not considered here. Finally, waste fats, oils
and greases are expected to have negligible environmental impact as a
feedstock since they do not impact agricultural land use and would
otherwise be used for some lower value purpose or simply discarded.
    Wetlands can be adversely affected by agricultural production
through runoff that can result in nutrient loading (particularly from
fertilizers) or from sedimentation (from erosion). Soy production tends
to use less fertilizer than corn production (the most likely
alternative crop) and can reduce the amount of fertilizer required for
corn when planted in rotation with corn. However, compared to other
crops, erosion can be higher from fields planted in row crops such as
corn and soy beans. While the impacts of nutrient loading and erosion
tend to be site specific, good farming practices including the optimum
fertilizer use and the set aside of sensitive lands via the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) can significantly help control these
adverse affects. Wetlands can also be adversely affected through
diversion of surface and ground water for agricultural irrigation.
Soybean production less frequently relies on irrigation than corn and
some other crops. More discussion on water usage is included below in
the section on water use and water quality impacts.
    Ecosystems and wildlife habitat can be adversely affected if CRP
lands are converted to crop production, if row crops such as soybeans
replace grassy crops and in general if new lands with diverse
vegetation are converted to crop production. As explained in the RFS2
final rule, we do not expect the RFS program production to result in an
increase in total acres of agricultural land under production in the
U.S. compared to a reference case without the impact of the RFS2
volumes. The relatively small increase of 0.28 billion gall should not
appreciably affect the amount of land devoted to oil seed production.
Additionally, the USDA commitment to support the CRP program should
minimize the likelihood of any significant change in the amount of CRP
land. Therefore, while some very local changes may result due to
individual farmer's planting decisions, since no new crop land are
expected in the U.S. due to this increase in the biomass-based diesel
standard and sensitive lands will be protected via programs such as
CRP, no measureable impact in aggregate ecosystems or wildlife habitat
due to cropland expansion is expected.
    Increased water withdrawals for soy biodiesel production can lead
to more frequent low-flow conditions that reduce the availability for
aquatic habitat. Additionally, waste water from biodiesel production
can adversely affect surface water quality if not properly treated.
7. Water Quality and Quantity
    The water quality and quantity impacts of biodiesel are primarily
related to the type of feedstock and the production practices used both
to produce the feedstock and to convert the feedstock into biodiesel.
Soybeans are the principal feedstock used for biodiesel production and
are predicted to account for 600 million gallons of the 1.28 billion
gallons evaluated for 2013. Non-food grade corn oil extracted during
ethanol production, animal fats and recycled fats account for most of
the remaining biodiesel feedstock. Since these fats and greases are the
byproduct of another use and are not produced specifically for
biodiesel manufacture, their production and primary use is not related
to the level of biodiesel so their indirect impacts are not considered
here. While non-food grade corn oil is extracted for its use as a
feedstock for biodiesel production, it is a by-product of corn ethanol
production. The corn used for biofuel production is primarily grown for
the purpose of producing ethanol, not as a source of extracted non-food
grade oil so the water impacts of corn production are primarily a
concern for ethanol produced from the corn starch, not the by-product
of extracted corn oil. Thus, this analysis will focus on soybeans as a
primary source of vegetable oil used in biodiesel production. No
specific public comments on these impacts were received so the
following discussion updates the analyses provided in the proposal.
    From a water quality perspective, the primary pollutants of concern
from soybean production are fertilizers (nitrogen and phosphorus) and
sediment. Additional pollutants such as from pesticides have the
potential to impact water quality to a lesser degree. There are three
major pathways for these potential pollutants to reach water from
agricultural lands: runoff from the land's surface, subsurface tile
drains, or leaching to ground water. Climate, hydrological, and
management factors influence the potential for these contaminants to
reach water from agricultural lands.
a. Impacts on Water Quality and Water Quantity Associated With Soybean
Production
    After corn, soybeans are the second largest agricultural crop in
terms of acreage in the U.S. In 2010, American farmers planted 77.7
million acres of

soybeans and harvested 3.4 billion bushels. As with the production of
any agricultural crop, the impact on water quality depends on a variety
of factors including production practices, use of conservation
practices and crop rotations by farmers, and acreage and intensity of
tile drained lands. Additional factors outside agricultural producers'
control include soil characteristics, climate, and proximity to water
bodies.
    Soybeans are typically grown in the same locations as corn since
farmers commonly rotate between the two crops. Nutrients are applied to
fewer soybean acres than corn and at much lower rates because soybean
is a legume.\51\ Legumes have associations in their roots with bacteria
that can acquire atmospheric nitrogen and convert it into bio-available
forms, reducing the need for external addition of nitrogen fertilizer.
However, losses of nitrogen and phosphorus from soybeans can occur at
quantities that can degrade water quality.\52\ In 2006, USDA's NASS
estimated that nitrogen was applied to 18 percent of the 2006 soybean
planted acres in the Program States at an average rate of 16 pounds per
acre per year. Phosphate was applied to 23 percent of the planted
acres, at an average rate of 46 pounds per acre (NASS, 2007).\53\ The
quantity of nitrogen fertilizer applied to soybean fields ranged from 0
to 20 pounds per acre, while the quantity of phosphate ranged from 0 to
80 pounds per acre. As with corn, the conversion of idled acreage to
soybeans is estimated to result in losses of nitrogen and phosphorus
from the soil through cultivation.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency).
Renewable fuel standard program (RFS2) regulatory impact analysis.
EPA-420-R-10-006. Available at:  http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.
    \52\ Dinnes, DL; Karlen, DL; Jaynes, DB; Kaspar, TC; Hatfield,
JL; Colvin, TS; Cambardella, CA. 2002. Nitrogen management
strategies to reduce nitrate leaching in tile-drained midwestern
soils. Agronomy Journal 94(1): 153-171.
    \53\ NASS (United States Department of Agriculture, National
Agricultural Statistics Service). 2007. Agricultural chemical usage
2006 field crops summary. Ag Ch 1 (07)a. Available at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsFC//2000s/2007/AgriChemUsFC-05-16-2007_revision.pdf.
    \54\ Simpson, TW; Sharpley, AN; Howarth, RW; Paerl, HW; Mankin,
KR. 2008. The new gold rush: Fueling ethanol production while
protecting water quality. Journal of Environmental Quality 37(2):
318-324.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agricultural conservation systems can reduce the impact of soybean
production on the environment. The systems components include (1)
Controlled application of nutrients and pesticides through proper rate,
timing, and method of application, (2) controlling erosion in the field
(i.e., reduced tillage, terraces, or grassed waterways), and (3)
trapping losses of soil and fertilizer runoff at the edge of fields or
in fields through practices such as cover crops, riparian buffers,
controlled drainage for tile drains, and constructed/restored
wetlands.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Dinnes, DL; Karlen, DL; Jaynes, DB; Kaspar, TC; Hatfield,
JL; Colvin, TS; Cambardella, CA. 220 2002. Nitrogen management
strategies to reduce nitrate leaching in tile-drained 221 midwestern
soils. Agronomy Journal 94(1): 153-171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effectiveness of conservation practices, however, depends upon
their adoption. The USDA`s Conservation Effects Assessment Project
(CEAP) quantified the effects of conservation practices used on
cultivated cropland in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. It found
that, while erosion control practices are commonly used, there is
considerably less adoption of proper nutrient management to mitigate
nitrogen loss to water bodies.\56\ However, as noted above, the
relatively low amount of fertilizer used for soy bean production tends
to lessen the potential for nitrogen loss to water bodies.
Additionally, soybean production can reduce the amount of biomass left
on the field compared to a corn case where much of the stover is left
to protect the soil and enhance biomass content. In such a case, there
could be more soil erosion with soybean production compared to corn
production and potentially greater nutrient runoff. Proper soil
management can reduce this erosion concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources
Conservation Service. 2010. Assessment of the effects of
conservation practices on cultivated cropland in the Upper
Mississippi River Basin. Available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/ceap/umrb/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Water for soybean cultivation predominately comes from rainfall,
although about 11 percent of soybean acres in the U.S. are
irrigated.\57\ Water use for irrigated soybean production in the U.S.
varies from 0.2 acre-feet per acre in Pennsylvania to about 1.4 acre-
feet per acre in Colorado, with a national average of 0.8 acre-feet of
water.\58\ Water used for irrigation is at least temporarily not
available for other uses and if pumped from deep aquifers, may not
return to those aquifers for centuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010. 2007 Census of
agriculture, Farm and ranch irrigation survey (2008). http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/fris08.pdf.
    \58\ U.S. Department of Energy. 2006. Energy demands on water
resources: Report to Congress on the interdependency of energy and
water. Available at: http://www.sandia.gov/energy-water/docs/121-RptToCongress-EWwEIAcomments-FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is some concern that the demand for corn and soybeans as
biofuel feedstocks may lead to high prices of these commodities,
inducing farmers with land currently enrolled in USDA's CRP to return
to intensive agricultural production (e.g., Secchi et al., 2009).\59\
The CRP provides farmers with financial incentives to set aside a
certain portion of their cropland in order to conserve or improve
wildlife habitat, reduce erosion, protect water quality, and support
other environmental goals. Biomass produced from CRP lands is
considered ``renewable biomass'' as defined under the RFS regulations
and is therefore eligible for use in the production of renewable fuel
under the RFS program. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(known as the Farm Bill) capped CRP acreage at 32 million acres,
reducing enrollment by 7.2 million acres from the 2002 Farm Bill with
the potential for making more acreage available for the production of
row crops. However, even if the aggregate total of CRP protected lands
does not change significantly, individual farmers have the opportunity
to move specific land in and out of CRP such that the specific lands in
the program do not necessarily remain fixed. Historically, land
entering and exiting the CRP program has been more vulnerable to
erosion than other cultivated land, but also less productive.\60\ So
while the conversion of a specific piece of land from CRP to intensive
feedstock production is possible, such a land use conversion is less
likely than land already in crop production given practical economic
and agronomic considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Secchi, S; Gassman, PW; Williams, JR; Babcock, BA. 2009.
Corn-based ethanol production and environmental quality: A case of
Iowa and the conservation reserve program. Environmental Management
44(4): 732-744.
    \60\ ERS (United States Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service). 2008. 2008 farm bill side-by-side. Available at:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/FarmBill/2008/Titles/TitleIIConservation.htm#conservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Impacts on Water Quality and Water Quantity Associated With
Biodiesel Production
    Biological oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids, and
glycerin pose the major water quality concerns in wastewater discharged
from biodiesel facilities. Actual impacts depend on a range of factors,
including the type of feedstock processed, bio-refinery technology,
effluent controls, and water re-use/recycling practices, as well as the
facility location and source and receiving water. Discharge water
quality requirements of local and regional governments can help assure
best

control practices and reduce water quality concerns.
    Despite the existing commercial market for glycerin and the likely
expanded uses for glycerin as mentioned in the RFS2 final rule, the
rapid development of the biodiesel industry has caused a glut of
glycerin production, resulting in many facilities disposing of
glycerin. Glycerin disposal may be regulated under several EPA
programs, depending on the practice. However, there have been instances
of glycerin dumping, including an incident in Missouri that resulted in
a large fish kill.\61\ Some biodiesel facilities discharge their
wastewater to municipal wastewater treatment systems for treatment and
discharge. There have been several cases of municipal wastewater
treatment plant upsets due to high BOD loadings from releases of
glycerin.\62\ BOD can lead to methane emissions during the water
treatment process. To mitigate wastewater issues, some production
systems reclaim glycerin from the wastewater. Closed-loop systems in
which water and solvents can be recycled and reused can reduce the
quantity of water that must be pretreated before discharge. Others
employ anaerobic digesters to mitigate the release of methane to the
atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ U.S. EPA. 2010b. Renewable fuel standard program (RFS2)
regulatory impact analysis. EPA-420-R-10-006. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.
    \62\ U.S. EPA. 2010b. Renewable fuel standard program (RFS2)
regulatory impact analysis. EPA-420-R-10-006. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Biodiesel can also impact water bodies as a result of spills.
However, biodiesel degrades approximately four times faster than
petroleum diesel including in aquatic environments.\63\ Results of
aquatic toxicity testing of biodiesel indicate that it is less toxic
than regular diesel.\64\ Biodiesel does have a high oxygen demand in
aquatic environments and can cause fish kills as a result of oxygen
depletion. Water quality impacts associated with spills at biodiesel
facilities generally result from discharge of glycerin, rather than
biodiesel itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Kimble, J. n.d. Biofuels and emerging issues for emergency
responders. U.S. EPA. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fss/fss09/kimblebiofuels.pdf.
    \64\ Kahn, N; Warith, MA; Luk, G. 2007. A comparison of acute
toxicity of biodiesel, biodiesel blends, and diesel on aquatic
organisms. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association
57(3): 286-296.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Biodiesel facilities use much less water than ethanol facilities to
produce biofuel. The primary consumptive water use at biodiesel plants
is associated with washing and evaporative processes. Water use is
variable but is usually less than one gallon of water for each gallon
of biodiesel produced; some facilities recycle wash water, which
reduces overall water consumption.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Renewable Fuels Standard Program (RFS2), Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA). EPA-420-R-10-006. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Job Creation and Rural Economic Development
    The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) requires analyses
of, among other factors, the impact of renewable fuel use on ``* * *
job creation [and] rural economic development * * *'' to help inform
each annual determination of applicable volumes. In the RFS2 final
rule, we anticipated employment to increase and income to expand in
rural areas and farming communities as a result of the increased use of
renewable fuel. Income expansion in rural areas from renewable fuel
production will contribute to rural economic development. As mentioned
above, industry activities are currently progressing, ramping up
biodiesel production from the approximately 0.38 billion gallons
estimated to have been used in the U.S. in 2010 to over 1.0 billion
gallons that was produced in 2011. This increase in biodiesel
production was in large part due to bringing on line existing capacity
idled due to lack of demand, a trend that we expect will continue into
the near future.
    Employment impacts of federal rules are of particular concern in
the current economic climate of sizeable unemployment. The recently
issued Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review'' (January 18, 2011), states, ``Our regulatory system must
protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while
promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job
creation''. Executive Order 13563 also states that ``[i]n applying
these principles, each agency is directed to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and
costs as accurately as possible'' and that ``* * * each agency may
consider (and discuss qualitatively) values that are difficult or
impossible to quantify * * *'' Consistent with the Executive Order, and
consistent with recent efforts to characterize the employment effects
of economically significant rules, the Agency has provided this
analysis to inform the discussion of labor demand and employment
impacts in rural areas and farming communities. Estimates of this
particular rule's effects on labor markets beyond the biodiesel
production sector are ``difficult or impossible to quantify'' to an
acceptable degree of accuracy using currently available methodologies,
Therefore, the Agency has not quantified the rule's effects on labor in
other sectors, including conventional diesel production and sales, nor
has the agency attempted to estimate the effects induced by changes in
workers' incomes or changes in food and fuel prices.
    When the economy is at full employment, an environmental regulation
is unlikely to have much impact on net overall U.S. employment;
instead, labor would primarily be shifted from one sector to another.
These shifts in employment impose an opportunity cost on society,
approximated by the wages of the employees, as regulation diverts
workers from other activities in the economy. In this situation, any
effects on net employment are likely to be transitory as workers change
jobs (e.g., some workers may need to be retrained or require time to
search for new jobs, while shortages in some sectors or regions could
bid up wages to attract workers).
    On the other hand, if a regulation comes into effect during a
period of high unemployment, a change in labor demand due to regulation
may affect net overall U.S. employment because the labor market is not
in equilibrium. Schmalansee and Stavins point out that net positive
employment effects are possible in the near term when the economy is at
less than full employment due to the potential hiring of idle labor
resources by the regulated sector to meet new requirements (e.g., to
install new equipment) and new economic activity in sectors related to
the regulated sector.\66\ In the longer run, the net effect on
employment is more difficult to predict and will depend on the way in
which the related industries respond to the regulatory requirements.
For this reason, Schmalensee and Stavins urge caution in reporting and
interpreting partial employment effects since it can ``paint an
inaccurate picture of net employment impacts if not placed in the
broader economic context.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Schmalensee, Richard, and Robert N. Stavins. ``A Guide to
Economic and Policy Analysis of EPA's Transport Rule.'' White paper
commissioned by Excelon Corporation, March 2011 (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0799).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule is expected to primarily affect employment in the United
States through the biodiesel plants and distributors, and through
several related sectors, specifically, industries that supply inputs in
the production of biodiesel. To provide a partial picture of

the employment consequences of this rule, EPA investigated the expected
consequences for rural areas and farming communities. Assuming the
current average of 30 to 40 people to operate a biodiesel plant of 30
million gallons (a typical capacity for a standalone
transesterification plant), an expansion of 280 million gallons is the
equivalent of adding about 4 plants representing the addition of around
350 direct jobs for biodiesel production.\67\ Providing soy oil
feedstock would require an estimated 120 additional truck trips per day
or an addition of 120 delivery drivers per day assuming one trip per
delivery truck per day to account for driving and loading/unloading
time.\68\ Expansions to the fuel distribution infrastructure (i.e.,
more fuel terminals, rail cars, tank trucks, barges etc.) would also be
needed to support the use of an additional 280 million gallon increase
in the 2013 volume requirement for biomass-based diesel. Necessary
support to a functioning biodiesel plant such as the delivery of
methanol to allow processing of vegetable oil into biodiesel as well as
additional handling at biodiesel distribution centers will also add
directly to the employment impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Presentation from National Biodiesel Board, ``Biodiesel
Forecasts, Infrastructure, and Economic Impacts'', February 14,
2012.
    \68\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most large biodiesel plants in the U.S. are located in rural
communities near feedstock (soybean oil or corn oil) sources. Urban
biodiesel plants tend to be smaller with more diffuse feedstock
suppliers. In 2011, approximately 71 percent of biodiesel producers
were located in rural areas, defined as towns of less than 50,000. A 30
million gallon per year (MGY) biodiesel plant will spend nearly $140
million on goods and services with feedstocks accounting for more than
80 percent of expenditures.\69\ The size of the economic impact on the
local economy of spending by an individual biodiesel plant will depend
on location (e.g., state) and how much feedstock is sourced locally.
Moreover, our analysis cannot determine the extent to which new capital
invested in biodiesel production displaces investments that otherwise
would have occurred in rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the employment effects from increased biodiesel
production, this rule would also result in reductions in conventional
diesel fuel use, which could affect employment in the diesel fuel
supply chain. The loss of expenditures to diesel fuel suppliers
throughout the diesel fuel supply chain, from the petroleum refiners to
diesel fuel distributors, is likely to result in some loss in
employment in these sectors. The potential impacts on the diesel
industry and other sectors of the economy are not quantified in this
analysis because available data and methodologies are insufficient to
support reasonably accurate estimates of the incremental employment
effects of this rule.
    To summarize, we anticipate that bringing idle biodiesel plants
back online and expanding biodiesel distribution infrastructure in the
U.S. will increase employment and investment in the renewable fuels and
related industries, consistent with the EISA directive to assess impact
on rural economic development. These increases in employment are
similar to what we anticipated when we analyzed the volume requirements
in RFS2 final rule. These employment impacts may be offset to some
degree by decreases in other sectors and/or locations (e.g., from the
reduced production and transport of conventional diesel fuel); however
sufficiently reliable data and a satisfactory methodology supporting
quantitative evaluation of the employment impacts beyond the biodiesel
sectors are not currently available.
    One commenter raised the issue of the impacts of the potential
increased use of animal fats to produce biodiesel under a 1.28 billion
gallon requirement on employment within the oleochemical industry.
According to the commenter, with renewable fuel production consuming an
increasingly significant amount of the total supply of animal fats
produced in the U.S., this may limit the availability of animal fats
for oleochemical production. According to the commenter, the price of
animal fats recently exceeded the price of Malaysian palm oil. If the
oleochemical industry switched to palm oil as a feedstock to make its
products and located near palm oil supply, there could be a possible
loss of U.S. employment in this industry.
    As the same commenter acknowledged, we cannot prevent any
feedstocks from being used to produce RIN-generating renewable fuel if
they meet the regulatory definition of renewable biomass and are
otherwise valid. Nevertheless, while Table III.B-1 lists grease and
fats as one likely source of feedstocks for the production of biomass-
based diesel, we noted in Section III.B that there could be sufficient
sources of other feedstocks to produce 1.28 billion gallons of biomass-
based diesel without using any animal fats. The comment implies that
feedstock used in the oleochemical industry depends significantly on
relative costs which can vary over time in part due to changes in
demand. The cost of animal fat is dependent on the general demand for
this material which is only in part impacted by its potential use as a
biofuel feedstock. The general supply of animal fat is not expected to
be impacted significantly by its alternative use as a biofuel feedstock
or the range of other uses of this material. Thus the choice of
feedstock(s) used by the oleochemical industry already depends on
market prices of multiple feedstock sources. Since feedstock such as
rendered fats or, as suggested by the commenter, palm oil are readily
marketed and transportable, we do not expect the industry to relocate
production every time feedstock market conditions change. Therefore we
do not believe production facility location will be significantly
impacted by the potential use of rendered fats as a biofuel feedstock
if some portion of the 280 million gallon increase in the biomass-based
diesel standard is produced from rendered fats.

B. Consideration of Applicable Statutory Economic Factors

    The RFS program established by Congress is primarily a long-term
program aimed at replacing substantial volumes of fossil-based
transportation fuels with low GHG renewable fuels over time. Congress
established a list of factors to be considered in setting the annual
biomass-diesel mandate, and these factors include consideration of some
aspects of economic costs and some aspects of economic benefits (among
other impacts and factors). In the final rulemaking for the RFS2, EPA
assessed the costs and benefits of this program as a whole when the
program was fully mature, which we continue to believe is the
appropriate approach to examining the costs and benefits of a long term
program like the RFS2. However, the annual standard-setting process is
part of the program. The annual standard-setting process encourages
consideration of the program on a piecemeal (i.e., year to year) basis,
which may not reflect the long-term economic effects of the program.
    EPA received comments requesting that we consider costs and
benefits for the 1.28 billion gallon biomass-based diesel mandate in
2013. This mandate is an interim step within the larger RFS program, so
any examination of short-term impacts separate from that larger effort
must be kept in context. Further, many of the impacts of this rule are
difficult to fully quantify, which makes any comprehensive
consideration of

costs and benefits difficult to undertake in the limited timeframe of
the RFS annual rule. In spite of these limitations, EPA has analyzed
some of the costs and has estimated the monetary value of some of the
benefits of the 2013 biomass-based diesel mandate to provide more
information on this rulemaking.
1. Monetized Quantifiable Costs
    Our analysis of costs focuses on the sector most likely to be
impacted by an increase in biomass-based diesel volumes--the
agricultural commodity market. To assess some of the impacts of the
1.28 billion gallon biodiesel mandate, EPA used a stochastic economic
model developed by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development
(CARD) at Iowa State University to conduct this analysis. The CARD
stochastic model approximates U.S. and Brazilian biofuel production,
consumption, and trade. Using a relatively small set of input
assumptions about petroleum prices, commodity yields, and ethanol
production, the CARD model examines what the U.S. and Brazilian
biofuels markets may look like under different combinations of
parameters (e.g., low petroleum prices, low soybean yields, and high
Brazilian ethanol production).
    The model shows the probability of different outcomes by running
500 different potential scenarios. This modeling approach provides a
range of estimates which helps to bound uncertainty about possible
impacts on the biofuels sector. Analysis of this range can indicate
which outcomes are more likely than others and also provide a sense of
the possible high and low estimates that should be considered for a
given variable. The CARD model projects ranges for commodity yields and
prices, fuel volumes and prices, and several other variables. For the
biomass-based diesel standard, EPA analyzed the cost of mandating an
additional 280 million gallons for biodiesel in 2013, going from 1.0
billion gallons of biomass-based biodiesel to 1.28 billion gallons. For
purposes of this analysis, EPA assumed that the additional 280 million
gallons of biodiesel we are mandating for 2013 will be entirely
soybean-based and would not otherwise be produced. As we outline in
Section III.B of this rulemaking, most of the additional 280 million
gallons is likely to be soybean-based, but other sources are possible.
Because soybean oil feedstock is more expensive than corn oil or waste
feedstock, the cost impact of the extended volume requirement would
decrease if biodiesel production from these other sources expands. We
therefore consider the cost projections presented below to be
potentially high estimates.
a. Impact on the Cost of Soybean Oil
    One commenter suggested that the biodiesel mandate for 2013 will
result in an increase of soybean oil prices. In response to this
comment and other related comments, EPA modeled the change in soybean
oil prices in 2013 using the CARD stochastic model. Assuming that the
280 million gallon increment is met entirely with soybean oil biodiesel
in 2013, EPA estimates that the price of soybean oil will be $0.45 per
pound (in 2010$) under this mandate, compared to approximately $0.42
under a 1.0 billion gallon mandate (see Section III.B of this rule for
further discussion of feedstock availability and prices). The mandate
is estimated to increase feedstock costs of soybean-based biodiesel by
about $0.22 per gallon of biodiesel. The effect of this increase on the
cost of the additional 280 million gallons is incorporated into the
estimates in section IV.B.1.b.
b. Cost of Displacing Petroleum-Based Diesel With Soybean-Based
Biodiesel
    Producing an additional 280 million gallons of biodiesel will
displace approximately 255 million gallons of petroleum-based diesel.
Since biodiesel costs more to produce in the U.S. than diesel, this
displacement has associated costs. In this analysis, we compare the
cost of biodiesel and petrodiesel at the wholesale stage, since that is
when the two are blended together. Therefore, this analysis does not
consider taxes, retail margins, and any other costs and transfers that
occur at or after the point of blending.
    On this basis, EPA estimated the cost of producing and transporting
a gallon of biodiesel to the blender. For soybean-based biodiesel,
soybean oil feedstock costs generally represent the majority of the
overall cost, usually somewhere between 70 and 90 percent. The soybean
oil price estimates discussed in Section IV.B.1.a of this rule
therefore had a strong impact on EPA's cost estimates, though estimates
of distribution and other production costs were also important.
Estimating the cost to produce biodiesel and transport it to the
blender presents considerable uncertainties, even in the near term.
Unforeseen fluctuations in the prices of oil, for example, could have a
very significant effect.
    After estimating the cost of biodiesel at the wholesale stage, EPA
compared that to what it would cost to consume an equivalent amount of
petroleum-based diesel instead. The Department of Energy's Energy
Information Administration (EIA) publishes two regular reports that
make estimates of wholesale diesel prices in 2013. In 2013, costs are
on the low-end of the range if we use the wholesale diesel estimate
from DOE's most recent Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO).\70\ The high-
end estimate utilizes DOE's AEO12 ER wholesale diesel estimate.\71\
Both estimates are relevant for an analysis of fuel prices in 2013. On
this basis, we estimate the increase in the cost of fuel for 280
million gallons of biodiesel will be between $0.91 and $1.36 per gallon
in 2013. This translates into total cost estimates of $253 million to
$381 million from increased fuel cost in 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration. 2012. Short Term Energy Outlook, March 2012.
Available at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/index.cfm.
    \71\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration. 2012. Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (Early Release).
Available at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/.

 Table IV.B.1.b-1--Estimated Increase in Wholesale Cost of Biodiesel in
                    Comparison to Petrodiesel in 2013
                            [In 2010 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       AEO 2012 early
    Petroleum assumption         STEO March 2012           release
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference in biodiesel       $0.91...............  $1.36.
 production cost (per
 gallon).
Cost of 280 million gallons.  253 million.........  381 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with our previous work in this area, EPA's quantifiable
cost methodology is a ``bottom-up'' engineering cost analysis that
estimates the cost to produce a gallon of soybean-based biodiesel and
then compares that cost to the production cost of an energy-equivalent
gallon of petroleum-based diesel. In certain situations, it may also be
useful to use a ``top down'' analyses to estimate the potential cost of
a program to society. In the case of the biomass-based diesel standard,
one suggestion was to look at the RIN price as a proxy for the societal
cost of the program.
    RIN prices reflect the incremental private marginal cost of
blending BBD into the diesel fuel pool. As noted by Professor Bruce
Babcock, of Iowa State University:

``The market for RINs is an effective and efficient way to enforce
the mandates. Motor fuel producers who find that biofuel is too
difficult to access or to blend buy RINs instead. Fuel producers who
have ready access to biofuels and find it profitable to blend
biofuels sell their excess RINs. By making RINs tradable, the
mandates are met at the lowest possible cost.'' \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Babcock, B, Mandates, Tax Credits, and Tariffs: Does the
U.S. Biofuels Industry Need Them All? Iowa State University, Center
for Agricultural and Rural Development, Policy Brief 10-PB-1, March
2010. p. 4-5.

    We have received comments suggesting that we use RIN prices to
estimate the costs to society of the biomass-based diesel RFS2
requirement. RIN prices may be more representative of marginal costs.
However, the use of historical RIN price trends may have limitations
since RIN price may reflect other policy changes such as changes in
U.S. tax policy, import tariff policies, and other effects in RIN
markets.\73\ We finally note that other factors, such as the existence
of multiple RIN vintages in any given year and the effects of other
policies can create incentives for potential speculation in the RIN
markets. In their 2011 report on RINs, USDA observed that this
speculation results in RIN prices that are somewhat higher than the
cost of biodiesel, though the exact amount of this increment is
extremely difficult to quantify.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ McPhail, L, P Westcott, and H Lutman, The Renewable
Identification Number System and U.S. Biofuel Mandates, United
States Department of Agriculture, November 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Transportation Fuel Costs
    In the NPRM, we cited cost estimates that we had developed in the
RFS2 final rule. In response to comment, we have revised our
methodology for examining the effect of this mandate on the cost of
transportation fuel. The estimates described in Section IV.B.1 above
represent the quantifiable costs to society as a whole stemming from
our increase in the biomass-based diesel volume requirement from 1.0
billion gal to 1.28 billion gal. These estimates do not include certain
transfers, such as those between buyers and sellers of diesel fuel. For
this reason, the increase in the cost of transportation fuel from a
societal perspective is different from the increase from the
perspective of individual buyers and sellers of fuel. However, these
costs do impact the retail price of diesel and associated economic
impacts for fuel consumers.
    To estimate the increase in the cost of transportation fuel
associated with today's mandate for 1.28 billion gal in 2013, we took
our projections for the quantifiable program costs reported in Section
IV.B.1.b and compared that to projected fuel consumption. The AEO
projects that the U.S. will consume 44.9 billion gal of blended diesel
in 2013.\75\ Averaged over this diesel pool, the quantifiable costs of
the 1.28 billion gal mandate translate into a per gallon cost of
between $0.006 and $0.008 in 2013.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration. 2012. Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (Early Release).
Available at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/.
    \76\ If current RIN prices were used to gauge social cost in
lieu of the bottom-up engineering cost approach applied herein, the
estimate of transportation fuel costs would be higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several parties commented that the analysis of the cost impacts of
1.28 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel must take into account the
biodiesel tax subsidy, which expired at the end of 2011. Fuel taxes and
tax subsidies function to change the manner in which society pays for
transportation fuel through redistribution of costs, but they do not
change the total cost to society. For this reason we generally do not
quantify the impact of taxes or tax subsidies on price, but instead
focus on the costs to produce and distribute transportation fuel.
Moreover, the impact of the biodiesel tax subsidy on the retail price
of biodiesel is a complex relationship that can be difficult to assess.
For instance, Figure IV.B.1.c-2 shows the retail price of biodiesel
over the period January 2008 through April 2012. While the biodiesel
tax credit was not effective during 2010 or 2012, the price of
biodiesel was not substantially higher during these years than it was
at other times. Moreover, after the tax credit was reinstated for 2011,
including retroactive credits for biodiesel produced in 2010, the price
of biodiesel in 2011 did not decrease substantially in 2011 compared to
2010. These results illustrate the difficulty in correlating biodiesel
price with tax policies, and thus represents an additional reason that
we have not made an effort to project biodiesel prices in the future
under different tax policy scenarios.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27SE12.000

    In their comments on the 2012 Renewable Fuel Standards, the
American Trucking Association (ATA) suggested that production of
biomass-based biodiesel from yellow grease and other rendered fats may
not be economically practical due to the diffuse nature of the
feedstock supply chain. Specifically, ATA argued that the cost of
collection of often small quantities of this feedstock dispersed over a
wide geographic area and their transport to biofuel producers may be
cost-prohibitive.
    We agree with the commenter that the transportation costs
associated with the collection of yellow grease and other rendered fats
may be greater than the cost of collection for biomass-based biodiesel
feedstock such as soybean oil. However, the actual delivered cost of
feedstock for use in producing biodiesel consists of two components:
the cost of production and the cost of transportation. For soybean oil,
the cost of production (e.g., planting, fertilizing, harvesting,
expelling) is relatively large compared to the cost of transportation
to centralized biofuel producers. However, the cost of production for
yellow grease and other rendered fats is zero, as they are considered
wastes or byproducts. When combining both cost components (i.e.,
production and transportation) for each respective feedstock from
USDA's National Weekly Agricultural Energy Round-Up,\77\ the total
delivered costs for yellow grease and other rendered fats is
consistently less that the total delivered costs for soybean oil. For
instance, for the week of March 30, 2012, crude soybean oil was selling
for about 53 [cent]/lb, while yellow grease was selling for about 41
[cent]/lb. As such, we believe that the ATA concerns regarding the
feedstock supply chain are not warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ USDA Livestock & Grain Market News for October 14, 2011.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lswagenergy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Monetized Quantifiable Benefits
    Many of the benefits and impacts that Congress asked EPA to examine
when evaluating whether to increase the volume requirement for biomass-
based biodiesel are difficult to fully quantify. In this section, we
present a selection of quantifiable benefits from increased biodiesel
production, including increased energy security and reduced greenhouse
gas emissions.
a. Energy Security
    Quantified energy security benefits are taken from the estimates
reported in Section IV.A.2 of this final rule. As noted there, EPA
considers only the macroeconomic disruption and adjustment effect in
its estimates of energy security benefits. Based on application of the
ORNL methodology, we estimate that the energy security benefits of the
additional 280 mill gal increment of biodiesel are $0.15 per gallon in
2013. This translates to a total program benefit of about $41 million.
b. Air Quality
    We discuss air quality impacts qualitatively in Section IV.A.4 of
this final rule and expect an additional 280 mill gal of biodiesel will
have a relatively small impact on ambient air quality. That said, we do
expect the production and combustion of biodiesel to have a slightly
different emissions impact relative to petroleum-based diesel. As
presented in Table IV.A.4-1, we estimated that the increased production
of biodiesel related to the RFS2 mandate would impact both downstream
and upstream emissions,

with increases in some pollutants and decreases in others.
    Ideally, the monetized impacts of changes in air quality related to
the final rule would be estimated based on changes in ambient pollution
concentrations and population exposure, as determined by complete air
quality and exposure modeling. However, conducting such detailed
modeling was not possible within the timeframe for this analysis.
    Instead, our analysis of PM2.5-related health impacts
associated with 280 million additional gallons of biodiesel uses a
``dollar-per-ton'' method to estimate selected PM2.5-related
health impacts. These PM2.5-related dollar-per-ton estimates
provide the total monetized human health impacts (the sum of premature
mortality and premature morbidity) of reducing one ton of directly
emitted PM2.5, or one ton of a pollutant that contributes to
secondarily-formed PM2.5 (such as NOx, and SOx) from a
specified source.\78\ The dollar-per-ton technique has been used in
previous analyses, including the 2012-2016 Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas
Rule,\79\ the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
RIA,\80\ the Portland Cement National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) RIA,\81\ and the final NO2
NAAQS.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Due to analytical limitations, the estimated dollar-per-ton
values do not include comparable impacts related to reductions in
other ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants (such as ozone,
NO2 or SO2) or toxic air pollutants, nor do they monetize
all of the potential health and welfare effects associated with
PM2.5 or the other criteria pollutants.
    \79\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2010.
Regulatory Impact Analysis, Final Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. April.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420r10009.pdf. EPA-420-R-10-009.
    \80\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008.
Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2008 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ground-level Ozone, Chapter 6. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. March. Available
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/6-ozoneriachapter6.pdf. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-0238.
    \81\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010.
Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing
Industry. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC. August. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementfinalria.pdf>. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0472-0241.
    \82\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010.
Final NO2 NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. April.
Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/FinalNO2RIAfulldocument.pdf. Accessed March 15, 2010. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0472-0237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis of the final 2013 fuel mandate did not estimate the
direct emissions impacts to which we could apply the ``dollar-per-ton''
estimates. Instead, we converted ``dollars-per-ton'' to ``dollars-per-
gallon'' by transferring the biodiesel tons-to-emissions relationship
observed in the RFS2 final rule analysis to the current analysis
(dividing emissions in Table IV.A.4-1 by 1.44 billion gallons of
biodiesel) and multiplying that by each pollutant-specific dollar-per-
ton estimate.
    The dollar-per-ton estimates used to monetize the emissions impacts
from each gallon of biodiesel are provided in Table IV.B.2.b-1.

                         Table IV.B.2.b-1--PM2.5-related Dollar-per-ton Values (2010$) a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 All sources     Upstream (non-EGU)          Mobile sources
                                                     \c\             sources \d\       -------------------------
                      Year                      ---------------------------------------
                                                                              Direct        NOX         Direct
                                                     SO2          NOX         PM2.5                     PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar-per-ton Derived from American Cancer Society Analysis (Pope et al., 2002) Using a 3 Percent Discount Rate
                                                       \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015...........................................      $30,000       $4,900     $230,000       $5,100     $280,000
2020...........................................       33,000        5,400      250,000        5,600      310,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Dollar-per-ton Derived from American Cancer Society Analysis (Pope et al., 2002) Estimated Using a 7 Percent
                                                Discount Rate \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015...........................................       27,000        4,500      210,000        4,600      250,000
2020...........................................       30,000        4,900      230,000        5,100      280,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dollar-per-ton Derived from Six Cities Analysis (Laden et al., 2006) Estimated Using a 3 Percent Discount Rate
                                                       \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015...........................................       73,000       12,000      560,000       12,000      680,000
2020...........................................       80,000       13,000      620,000       14,000      750,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dollar-per-ton Derived from Six Cities Analysis (Laden et al., 2006) Estimated Using a 7 Percent Discount Rate
                                                       \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015...........................................       66,000       11,000      510,000       11,000      620,000
2020...........................................       72,000       12,000      560,000       12,000      680,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total dollar-per-ton estimates include monetized PM2.5-related premature mortality and morbidity endpoints.
  Range of estimates are a function of the estimate of PM2.5-related premature mortality derived from either the
  ACS study (Pope et al., 2002) or the Six-Cities study (Laden et al., 2006).
\b\ The dollar-per-ton estimates presented in this table assume either a 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate in
  the valuation of premature mortality to account for a twenty-year segmented cessation lag.
\c\ Note that the dollar-per-ton value for SO2 is based on the value for Stationary (Non-EGU) sources; no SO2
  value was estimated for mobile sources.
\d\ Non-EGU denotes stationary sources of emissions other than electric generating units (EGUs).

    For certain PM2.5-related pollutants (such as direct
PM2.5 and NOx), EPA estimates different per-ton values for
reducing mobile source emissions than for reductions in emissions of
the same pollutant from stationary sources such as fuel refineries and
storage facilities. These reflect differences in the typical geographic
distributions of emissions of each pollutant by different sources,
their contributions to ambient levels of PM2.5, and
resulting changes in population exposure. We apply these separate
values to estimates of changes in emissions from vehicle use and from

fuel production and distribution to determine the net change in total
economic impacts from emissions of those pollutants. Monetized
PM2.5-related health impacts associated with the final rule
can be found in Table IV.B.2.b-2 and per gallon impacts can be found in
Table IV.B.2.b-3.

 Table VI.B.2.b-2--Total Ambient PM2.5-related Monetized Health Impacts
                           (Millions 2010$) a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           2013 Monetized impacts  (7%
                                         discount rate-3% discount rate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Dollar-per-ton Derived from American Cancer Society Analysis (Pope
                              et al., 2002)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downstream.............................  $14 to $16.
Upstream...............................  -$34 to -$37.
Net Impacts............................  -$19 to -$21.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Using Dollar-per-ton Derived from Six Cities Analysis (Laden et al.,
                                  2006)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downstream.............................  $35 to $39.
Upstream...............................  -$82 to -$91.
Net Impacts............................  -$47 to -$52.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Note: Negative values indicate disbenefits associated with
  decrements in ambient air quality.

   Table VI.B.2.b-3--Per Gallon Ambient PM2.5-related Monetized Health
                      Impacts (2010$ Per gallon) a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          2013 Monetized impacts  (7%
                                        discount rate-3% discount rate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Dollar-per-ton Derived from American Cancer Society Analysis (Pope
                              et al., 2002)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downstream...........................  $0.05 to $0.06.
Upstream.............................  -$0.12 to -$0.13.
Net Impacts..........................  -$0.07 to -$0.08.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Using Dollar-per-ton Derived from Six Cities Analysis (Laden et al.,
                                  2006)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downstream...........................  $0.12 to $0.14.
Upstream.............................  -$0.29 to -$0.33.
Net Impacts..........................  -$0.17 to -$0.19.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Note: Negative values indicate disbenefits associated with
  decrements in ambient air quality.

    The method used in this analysis to estimate the monetized
PM2.5-related impacts of an increase in biodiesel production
is subject to a number of assumptions and uncertainties.
     The method does not reflect local variability in
population density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence
rates, or other local factors that might lead to an overestimate or
underestimate of the actual benefits of controlling fine particulates
in specific locations. This is particularly a problem for the
monetization of upstream emissions since those have a very specific
geographic profile different to that associated with mobile source
emissions.
     Transferring the biodiesel tons-to-emissions relationship
derived from the RFS2 mandate in 2022 to the current analysis assumes
that the incremental production of biodiesel associated with the 2013
mandate (of 280 million gallons) will yield the same relative emissions
impacts, which we cannot say with certainty.
     This analysis assumes that all fine particles, regardless
of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature
mortality. PM2.5 produced via transported precursors emitted
from stationary sources may differ significantly from direct
PM2.5 released from engines and other industrial sources. At
the present time, however, no clear scientific grounds exist for
supporting differential effects estimates by particle type.
     This analysis assumes that the health impact function for
fine particles is linear within the range of ambient concentrations
under consideration. Thus, the estimates include health benefits from
reducing fine particles in areas with varied initial concentrations of
PM2.5, including both regions that are in attainment with
fine particle standard and those that do not meet the standard, down to
the lowest modeled concentrations. This is an appropriate assumption
because the scientific literature provides no evidence of a threshold
below which health effects associated with exposure to fine particles--
including premature death--would not occur.
     There are several health benefits categories that we are
unable to quantify due to limitations associated with using dollars-
per-ton estimates, several of which could be substantial. Because
NOX and VOC emissions are also precursors to ozone, changes
in NOX and VOC would also impact ozone formation and the
health effects associated with ozone exposure. Dollars-per-ton
estimates for ozone do not exist due to issues associated with the
complexity of the atmospheric air chemistry and nonlinearities
associated with ozone formation. The PM-related benefits-per-ton
estimates also do not include any human welfare or ecological benefits.
3. Quantifiable Benefits and Costs Compared
    As we have observed above, the cost and benefit categories
discussed in this section are not comprehensive. EPA has included
estimates for those impacts that we are able to quantify at the present
time, but this is not meant to suggest that EPA considers these to be
the total costs and benefits of the 2013 biomass-based diesel mandate.
However, for illustrative purposes, we are providing a range of
quantifiable combined cost and benefit estimates for the impact of a
1.28 billion gallon mandate in 2013, based on those impacts that we
were able to monetize.
    EPA's estimates of quantifiable costs and benefits vary
significantly in 2013 due to uncertainty about the price of diesel as
well as uncertainty about the value of air quality impacts. Table
IV.B.3-1 presents the range of estimates for the combined quantifiable
costs and benefits of an additional 280 million gallons of biodiesel
produced in 2013, which varies from -$425 million to -$263 million.

  Table IV.B.3-1--Estimates of Combined Costs and Benefits of the 1.28
                Billion Gallon Biodiesel Mandate in 2013
                            [In 2010 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     AEO 2012 early release  (million)       STEO March 2012  (million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-$425 to -$391............................  -$297 to -$263
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rulemaking, we have only provided quantified cost and
benefit estimates for the year 2013. However, as observed above, these
estimates should not be considered in isolation. Rather, they should be
treated as a snapshot within the larger trends of quantified costs and
benefits laid out in the RFS2 final rule. The statute is forward-
looking in that it created a program whose energy and environmental
benefits are intended to grow over time. To evaluate the program on the
basis of only one early year's impacts, as part of near-term
implementation, would be to paint an unbalanced and incomplete picture.
For example, as we examine the costs of the program through time, we
see that these costs fall steadily. This is due to changes in the cost
of key fuel inputs. For instance, the cost of petroleum, the basic raw
material of diesel fuel, is expected to rise through time. Meanwhile,
the principal cost of soybean-based biodiesel, the soybean oil
feedstock, tends to fall though time due to rising crop yields. As a
result, the

relative cost difference between diesel and biodiesel fuel would be
expected to narrow through time as the program reaches maturity. Thus,
while quantified costs from the wider use of biomass-based biodiesel
can be greater than quantified benefits in the near term, through time
we expect that benefits will tend to increase and outweigh costs. The
estimates of quantified costs and benefits presented in this rulemaking
should be considered within this context.
    Further, as noted at the beginning of this section, this analysis
is not intended to serve as a comprehensive quantification of the costs
and benefits of this mandate. Rather, it illustrates those costs and
benefits that are quantifiable in response to comments received on the
proposed rule. To develop a comprehensive estimate of costs and
benefits, one would need to qualitatively balance these estimates
against the impacts discussed earlier in this section.

V. Final 2013 Volume for Biomass-Based Diesel

    Through the RFS program, Congress established a schedule of
renewable fuel volumes that gradually increases over time. While the
schedule in the statute for biomass-based diesel ends in 2012, the
schedule of increasing volumes for advanced biofuels continues through
2022. For the years between 2012 and 2022, the statute indicates that
biomass-based diesel volumes can increase above the 2012 applicable
volume of 1.0 billion gal, but they cannot ever be lower than 1.0
billion gal. Subject to a consideration of a number of factors as
described in Section II, we believe that it is appropriate to consider
biomass-based diesel as playing an increasing role in supplying
advanced biofuels to the market between 2012 and 2022.
    As described in Section IV.A.9, increases in the required volume of
biomass-based diesel above 1.0 billion gal will help to support rural
economic growth and job creation, will increase energy security, and
reduce emissions of GHGs. Our estimates of the quantifiable benefits of
an increase of 280 mill gal do not exceed the costs in 2013. However,
as laid out above, we expect benefits to generally exceed costs over
time based on the analysis performed for the RFS2 final rule. Thus by
establishing an applicable volume for biomass-based diesel in 2013 that
exceeds the minimum of 1.0 billion gal, we are helping to establish the
industry as a substantial contributor to the required volumes of
advanced biofuel anticipated after full implementation of the RFS
program.
    Therefore, based on our review of the factors required in the
statute, we are finalizing an applicable volume of 1.28 billion gal
biomass-based diesel for 2013, consistent with our proposal. We
received comments both in support of and opposed to an increase above
the statutory minimum of 1.0 billion gallons. We have determined that
1.28 billion gallons is achievable in 2013 and is a reasonable exercise
of our authority under CAA 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) to bring about the long-
term benefits of the RFS program.
    We did not propose biomass-based diesel standards for 2014 and
beyond in the NPRM since we believe we will be in a better position in
the future to evaluate all of the factors related to establishing an
applicable volume for 2014 and later years. In response to the NPRM,
two parties commented that EPA should set the required volumes of
biomass-based diesel through at least the year 2017. We agree that
specifying the required volumes of biomass-based diesel for more than
one compliance year would provide greater certainty for both biofuel
producers and obligated parties, stability for future investments and
contracts, and could potentially reduce the need to waive a portion of
the advanced biofuel requirement in future years. However, one of the
factors that we are required to consider when determining the
appropriate biomass-based diesel volume for years after 2012 is a
review of the implementation of the program during prior years. By
determining the applicable volume requirement for biomass-based diesel
only one year in advance, we are able to use the most up-to-date
information on the implementation of the program in making our
determination. This is particularly important in the early years of the
program.

VI. Public Participation

    Many interested parties participated in the rulemaking process that
culminates with this final rule. This process provided opportunity for
submitting written public comments following the proposal that we
published on July 1, 2011 (76 FR 38844), and we considered these
comments in developing the final rule. Public comments and EPA
responses are discussed throughout this preamble, and all comments
received are available in EPA docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is an ``economically significant regulatory action'' because it
has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
    The economic impacts of the RFS2 program on regulated parties,
including the impacts of the required volumes of renewable fuel, were
already addressed in the RFS2 final rule promulgated on March 26, 2010
(75 FR 14670). This action finalizes the applicable volume of biomass-
based diesel for 2013. We have been able to quantify some of the
economic impacts of this rule in 2013.
    We estimate that soybean prices could increase up to 3 cents per
pound in 2013 if the 2013 biodiesel standard is met solely as a result
of increased demand for soy bean oil. Potential use of other less
expansive feedstocks would reduce this impact on soy beans. Again
assuming the 280 million gallon increase in required biomass-based
diesel is met through increased demand for soy oil, we estimate the
cost of producing this biomass-based diesel would range from $253 to
$381 million in 2013. Adding these estimates of 2013 costs to the fuel
pool would result in a diesel fuel cost increase of less than 1 cent
per gallon. These estimates do not account for recent trends in crop
yields and grain prices resulting from drought conditions that are
occurring in many areas of the country. Given the wide range of
feedstocks from which biodiesel can be produced, the ultimate impact of
these drought conditions on the mix of biodiesel feedstocks in 2013 is
difficult to predict at this time.
    Quantified estimates of benefits and disbenefits include energy
security benefits of $0.15 per gallon in 2013 and air quality
disbenefits of $0.07 per gallon in 2013. Other benefits include GHG
emission reduction benefits and both direct and indirect employment
benefits in rural areas due to increased biodiesel production. Impacts
on water quality, water use, wetlands, ecosystems and wildlife habitats
are expected to be modest due to both the small impact on

crops planted and due to the relatively small impact of soy bean
production.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
since it only specifies the required volume of biomass-based diesel
under the RFS program for 2013. However, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has previously 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. This would include the following approved
information collections (with OMB control numbers and expiration dates
listed in parenthesis): ``Renewable Fuels Standard Program: Petition
and Registration'' (OMB Control Number 2060-0637, expires March 31,
2013); ``Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2)'' (OMB Control Number 2060-
0640, expires July 31, 2013); ``Regulations of Fuels and Fuel
Additives: 2011 Renewable Fuels Standard--Petition for International
Aggregate Compliance Approach'' OMB Control Number 2060-0655, expires
February 28, 2014). The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Detailed and searchable information
about these and other approved collections may be viewed on the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Paperwork Reduction Act Web site, which
is accessible at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The impacts
of the RFS2 program on small entities that are directly regulated under
the RFS2 program were already addressed in the RFS2 final rule
promulgated on March 26, 2010 (75 FR 14670). This rule simply
establishes the applicable volume for biomass-based diesel for 2013 at
a level that is consistent with the analyses in the RFS2 final rule.
Therefore, this action will not impose any additional requirements on
small entities beyond those which have already been evaluated.
    We received a comment suggesting that impacts on truckers of the
applicable volume of biomass-based diesel for 2013 established in this
rule should be evaluated as part of our standard small business impact
analysis. In response, we note that such analyses are only required
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for parties directly regulated by
a rule and that, in general, truckers are not directly regulated by
today's action nor under the regulatory requirements established in the
RFS2 final rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
This rule simply establishes the applicable volume for biomass-based
diesel for 2013 at a level that is consistent with the analyses in the
RFS2 final rule. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This action 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.

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. A summary of the concerns raised, and EPA's
response to those concerns, is provided in this preamble.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule will
be implemented at the Federal level and impose compliance costs only on
transportation fuel refiners, blenders, marketers, distributors,
importers, exporters, and renewable fuel producers and importers.
Tribal governments would be affected only to the extent they purchase
and use regulated fuels. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

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

    EPA interprets 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 and because it implements specific
standards established by Congress in statutes.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action
simply finalizes the annual standards for cellulosic biofuels for 2012
and biomass-based diesel for 2013, provisions for new RIN-generating
pathways, and clarifying changes and minor technical amendments to the
regulations.

I. National Technology Transfer 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.

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 final 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. This action does not relax the ambient emission control
measures on sources impacted by the RFS2 regulations. While we have
estimated that some emissions may increase as the result of the
incremental volume of 280 mill gal required through this final rule,
ambient emission control measures remain unaffected.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective 60 days from the date of
publication.

VIII. Statutory 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,
Air pollution control, Confidential Business Information, Diesel fuel,
Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 14, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-23344 Filed 9-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P