# Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response
to Public Comments

Volume No.:43

Subpart J—Ethanol ProductionJune 2010



# Subpart J—Ethanol Production

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmosphere Programs Climate Change Division Washington, D.C.iii FOREWORD

This document provides EPA’s responses to public comments on EPA’s Proposed Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register on April 10, 2009 (74 FR 16448). EPA received comments on this proposed rule via mail, e-mail, facsimile, and at two public hearings held in Washington, DC and Sacramento, California in April 2009. Copies of all comments submitted are available at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room. Co mments letters and transcripts of the public hearings are also availa ble electronically through h ttp://www.regulations.gov by searching

Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508.

Due to the size and scope of this rulemaking, EP A prepared this document in multiple volumes, with each volume focusing on a different broad subject area of the rule. This volume of the document provides EPA’s responses to significant public comments received for 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart J—Ethanol Production.

Each volume provides the verbatim text of comments extracted from the original letter or public hearing transcript. For each comment, the name and affiliation of the commenter, the document control number (DCN) assigned to the comment letter, and the numbe r of the comment excerpt is provided. In some cases the same comment excerpt was submitted by two or more commenters either by submittal of a form letter prepared by an organization or by the commenter incorporating by reference the comments in anothe r comment letter. Rather than repeat these comment excerpts for each commenter, EPA ha s listed the comment excerpt only once and provided a list of all the commenters who su bmitted the same form letter or otherwise incorporated the comments by reference in table(s) at the end of each volume (as appropriate).

EPA’s responses to comments are generally pr ovided immediately following each comment excerpt. However, in instances where several co mmenters raised similar or related issues, EPA has grouped these comments together and provide d a single response af ter the first comment excerpt in the group and referenced this response in the other co mment excerpts. In some cases, EPA provided responses to specific comments or groups of similar comments in the preamble to the final rulemaking. Rather than repeating those responses in this document, EPA has referenced the preamble.

While every effort was made to include all significant comments related to 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart J—Ethanol Production in this volume, some comments inevitably overlap multiple subject areas. For comments that overlapped two or more subject areas, EPA assigned the comment to a single subject category based on an assessment of the principle subject of the comment. For this reason, EPA encourages the public to read the ot her volumes of this document with subject areas that may be re levant to 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart J—Ethanol

Production.

Please note, EPA has made the fi nal decision not to include Subpa rt J- Ethanol Production as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. For more information, please See section III. Other Proposed Source Cate gories of today’s preamble of the final rule.iv The primary contacts regarding questions or comments on this document are:

Carol Cook (202) 343-9263

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Change Division

Mail Code 6207-J 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460

ghgreportingrule@epa.govv 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1. DEFINITION OF SOURCE CATEGORY ........................................................................... 11 

### SUBPART J. — ETHANOL PRODUCTION

1. DEFINITION OF SOURCE CATEGORY

Commenter Name: Karen St. John

Commenter Affiliation: BP America Inc. (BP)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0631.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 70

Comment: BP favors a technology-neutral approach to biofuels. We believe the biofuels

definition used in the rule for “ethanol” s hould be replaced with a more technology neutral

definition like “biofuels” in the Definitions se ction of Supbart J. “Eth anol” is a prescriptive definition that only defines one possible biofuels molecule. Adva nced and cellulosic biofuels utilize a variety of different fuels molecu les, which may have different performance characteristics than “ethanol.” BP, working in partnership with DuPont, is working to commercialize biobutanol, a biomass-derived mo lecule to improve the energy content and petroleum infrastructure compatibility of biof uels derived from a wide variety of biomass

feedstocks.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart J as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, etha nol production facilities will still be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule, or if they meet the requirements of subpart PP.

Ethanol is treated no differently than other biofuels in terms of reporting requirements for all sources but Subpart II - Industr ial Wastewater Treatment. A definition for ethanol production facility is included in su bpart II which mirrors that which was in Subpart J of the proposed rule. The facility types includ ed in this definition are the ones that are known to have significant potential for emissions. Other biofuels are not included in this definition, but production facilities for these other fuels may be required to report under other Subpart s. The rule does not require reporting of emissions from wastewat er treatment processes associated with the production of other biofuels. EPA did not have sufficient data on wastewater treatment at these facility types to determine if any facilities would exceed the thresholds examined in this rule.

Commenter Name: Bob Dinneen

Commenter Affiliation: Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0494.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: Under the Proposed Rule, reporting is only required for those sources for which EPA has provided calculation methodologies. For et hanol production facilities, EPA proposes to require reporting of emissions only from three so urces -- stationary fuel combustion, landfills and wastewater treatment. As such, emissions from ethanol fermentation should neither be calculated against the threshold no r be included in the reporting requirements. RFA agrees thatthis is the appropriate approach, which is consistent with EP A’s treatment of renewable fuels in general, and requests that EPA make this determination clear in the final rule.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart J as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, etha nol production facilities will still be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule, or if they meet the requirements of subpart PP.

EPA agrees with the commenter that emissions from ethanol fermentation are not included in

threshold calculations.

Note that CO 2 from fermentation, where captured, is in some cases reported under Subpart PP: Suppliers of CO 2

.

Commenter Name: Bob Dinneen

Commenter Affiliation: Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0494.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: It should be noted that in an inventory done by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (“IDNR”) -- 2007 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Selected Iowa Source Categories (Aug. 28, 2007) -- non-biogenic GHG emissions from et hanol plants paled in comparison to the largest emitters in the State. IDNR found that em issions ranged for 24 dry mill ethanol plants (22 natural gas-fired and 2 coal-fired ) ranged from 0.0114 to 0.1822 million mtCO 2 e (at 14-15). This can be compared to the emissions from the ten highest emitters in the State (all coal-fired utilities) which ranged from 1.31 to 9.14 million mtCO 2 e (at 19). The emissions from these ten

facilities accounted for 69% of th e total GHG emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the State.

Response: EPA has made the final deci sion not to include Subpart J as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, etha nol production facilities will still be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule, or if they meet the requirements of subpart PP.

EPA disagrees with the commenter that ethanol facilities should not be included in the rule because they would not be a significant s ource of greenhouse gas emissions. Although emissions from these facilities may constitute a small percentage of national greenhouse gas emitted, even source categories that are not larg e sources at the national level can include facilities that do have large emi ssions relative to fac ilities across industries. See the preamble signed in 2009 section II(E) for EPA’s rationale on the selection of the reporting thresholds, and the TSD for ethanol for more information on the inclusion of this source category.

While as a source category, ethanol production facilities may not be large sources of GHG emissions, the reporting of indivi dual facilities having emissions exceeding the thresholds in the rule supports the goal of the repo rting rule: to collect accurate a nd consistent data of sufficient quality to inform future policy and regulatory decisions.

2Commenter Name: Bob Dinneen

Commenter Affiliation: Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0494.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: In addition to stationary fuel combus tion, EPA includes landfills and wastewater treatment as sources for which ethanol produc tion facilities must re port GHG emissions in accordance with the methodologies in the Proposed Rule. In 2007, EPA estimated that emissions from waste activities, including landfilling, wast ewater treatment, and composting, were just over 2% of total U.S. GHG emissions. EPA, I nventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007, at 8-1 (Apr. 15, 2009) (hereinafter referred to as “EPA GHG Inventory”), http://www.epa.gov/ climatechange/emissions/dow nloads09/Waste.pdf. Any emissions that may

be attributable to landfills and wastewater treatm ent at ethanol facilities are likely to be only a tiny fraction of this small percent. First, EPA provides no support for its inclusion of landfill

emissions for ethanol facilities. EPA indicates it has no data on landfilling at ethanol facilities

“but it is believed that some of these f acilities may have landfills with significant GHG emissions.” TSD for Ethanol Facilities, at 3. Such a statement is not adequate justification to impose reporting requirements on ethanol facilities with respect to such landfills, where they are likely to be de minimis. A typical ethanol plant is not expected to have a landfill. In 2007, based on EPA’s GHG Inventory and assuming no recover y, industrial landfills made up less than 12%

of total CH 4 emissions from landfills in the U.S., with municipal waste landfills making up the rest. EPA GHG Inventory, at 8-2. CH 4 emissions from industrial landfills were estimated at 15.3 teragrams CO 2 equivalent (Tg CO 2 Eq.) in 2006 and 15.4 Tg CO 2 Eq. in 2007. Id. In its Technical Support Document for the Landfill Sect or (“TSD for Landfill Sector”) (Feb. 4, 2009), EPA estimated that, in 2006, 14.6 million metric tons CO 2 equivalent (mtCO 2 e) of CH 4 emissions came from industrial landfills at pulp and paper facilities and food-processing facilities (at 4). That leaves only 0.7 million mtCO 2 e of CH 4 emissions that can be attributed to all other

industrial landfills. Th is is 4.6% of CH 4 emissions from industrial landfills (15.3 Tg CO 2 Eq.),

0.5% of CH 4 emissions from landfills in total (130.4 Tg CO 2 Eq.), 0.4% of CH 4 emissions from the waste sector generally (156.5 Tg CO 2 Eq.), 0.1% of CH 4 emissions in the U.S. (582.0 Tg CO 2 Eq.), and 0.0099% of total GHG emissions in the U.S. (7,051.1 Tg CO 2 Eq.) (for 2006). Based on the information available, indust rial landfills at ethanol facilities can only be an insignificant part of U.S. GHG emissions, insufficient to re quire reporting under th e rule. Second, the only

discussion on emissions from ethanol facilities that EPA provides in its support documents for the Proposed Rule is on EPA’s estimates of emi ssions from wastewater treatment at ethanol facilities, but this information al so is not sufficient to support the inclusion of these emissions in the rule. Even here, EPA is making assumptions as to the number of facilities that contain wastewater treatment and the potential emissi ons. More important, as with landfill emissions, even based on EPA’s assumptions, emissions from wastewater treatment at ethanol production facilities are insignificant. EPA estimated that wastewater trea tment systems account for only 4% of total anthropogenic CH 4 emissions. Technical Support Docu ment for Wastewater Treatment: Proposed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Gr eenhouse Gases, at 4, (Feb. 4, 2009) (“TSD for Wastewater Treatment”). EPA estimated that CH 4 emissions from wastewater treatment at ethanol production facilities we re less than 1% of total CH 4 emissions from industrial wastewater treatment. TSD for Ethanol Facilities, at 3. EP A estimated only 1 etha nol facility to have emissions from wastewater treatment to exceed 25,000 mtCO 2 e. TSD for Wastewater Treatment, at 7. Based on EPA’s GHG Inventory, the estimated emissions from wastewater treatment at

ethanol facilities is de mi nimis. EPA estimated that CH 4 emissions totaled 68,200 mtCO 2 e in

32006. TSD for Ethanol F acilities, at 3. This is 0.27% of total CH 4 emissions from wastewater treatment (24.5 Tg CO 2 Eq.), 0.044% of total CH 4 emissions from the waste sector generally (156.5 Tg CO 2 Eq.), 0.012% of total CH 4 emissions in the U.S. (582.0 Tg CO 2 Eq.), and 0.00096% of total GHG emissions in the U.S. (7,051.1 Tg CO 2 Eq.) (for 2006). Based on the information available, emissions associated with wastewater treatment at ethanol facilities makes up an insignificant part of GHG emissions, insu fficient to require repor ting under the rule. EPA simply provides insufficient justification for including emissions from landfills and wastewater

treatment at ethanol facilities as part of their reporting requi rements.14 As such, these sources

should be removed from the re porting requirements for etha nol production f acilities under Subpart J of the Proposed Rule (Proposed Section 98.102(b) and (c)).

Response: EPA has made the final deci sion not to include Subpart J as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III, Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, etha nol production facilities will still be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule, or if they meet the requirements of subpart PP.

With regard to the lack of information on landfill ing of wastes at ethanol production facilities, it is expected that data collected through this rule will improve our understanding of emissions sources in various industries. Ethanol production facilities without landfills will not be required to report data for Subpart TT. In addition, Subpa rt TT in the final rule further clarifies that industrial landfills that receive organic waste must report only if their design capacity is 300,000 Mg of waste or greater.

See the preamble signed in 2009 (74 FR (page 56317)) for response to comments on de minimus exclusions. With regard to the percentage of national greenhouse gas emitted from ethanol production facilities, even source categories that are not large sources at the national level can include facilities that have large emissions relative to faciliti es across industries.

Commenter Name: Bob Dinneen

Commenter Affiliation: Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0494.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: EPA provides little information on its anal ysis of ethanol pro duction facilities in support of the requirements for this source category in th e Proposed Rule. Although EPA provides estimates as to the number of facilities that may be covered (based only on 140 total facilities), EPA provides no total emissions estimates for ethanol facilities. Ethanol is one of only two source categories for which EPA provides no such emission estimates to support their

inclusion in the listed source categories (food processi ng being the other). See Technical Support Document for Reporting Thresholds: Proposed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, Table 5-8 (Mar. 8, 2009) (“TSD for Reporting Thresholds ”) (OAR-2008-0508-0046). RFA questions EPA’s claim that “[e] stimates of total national emissions from landfills and stationary combustion at ethano l facilities are unavailable.” Technical Support Document for Ethanol Facilities: Proposed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, at 3 (Feb. 4, 2009) (“TSD For Ethanol Facilities”) (OAR-2008- 0508-0010). In the Proposed Rule, EPA notes that “[d]ata on stationary fuel combustion were used to estimate the minimum number of

facilities that would meet each of the facility-level thresholds examined.” 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,500.

4We did not find these estim ates in the record. The only information provided in the TSD and the Regulatory Impact Analysis wa s on wastewater treatment. As such, RFA cannot adequately respond to EPA’s decision to incl ude ethanol facilities as a sour ce category and to the potential impacts of the rule on ethanol facilities. EPA must provide this information to provide notice and an adequate opportunity for comm ent. Therefore, EPA should incl ude this information in the record and reopen the comment pe riod, providing sufficient time fo r interested members of the public to review the data and submit comments.

Response: EPA has made the final deci sion not to include Subpart J as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III, Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, etha nol production facilities will still be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule, or if they meet the requirements of subpart PP. For information on stationary comb ustion at ethanol facilities, see the Technical Support Document for Ethanol Facilities.

Commenter Name: John Seltz

Commenter Affiliation: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0465.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Under the proposed rule, ethanol fa cilities that emit more than 25,000 CO 2 - equivalent tons per year of greenhouses must report. The proposed rule does not reference biogenic CO 2 emissions from fermentation at the facilities. Biogenic CO 2 emissions from the combustion of biomass are reportable under the fe deral reporting rule. This seems inconsistent. The MPCA is interested in understanding th e basis for EPA’s reasoning on this issue.

Response: EPA has made the final deci sion not to include Subpart J as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III, Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, etha nol production facilities will still be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule, or if they meet the requirements of subpart PP.

With respect to emissions from combustion of bi omass, see the response to comment for the rule signed in 2009, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0690.1, excer pt 1 in Volume 1. For the purpose of the reporting rule, facilities are not to include CO 2 emissions associated with biomass combustion when determining whether they meet the requirements of 98(a )(2), but if they do meet the requirements of 98(a)(2), they are requi red to separately report emissions associated with the biomass combustion at the facility.

With regard to reporting of emissions from ferm entation by ethanol production facilities, please see the response to comment EPA- HW-OAR-2008-0508-0494.1, excerpt 20.

Commenter Name: Bob Dinneen

Commenter Affiliation: Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0494.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

5Comment: EPA has properly focused on non-biogenic anthropogenic sources of GHG em issions in the Proposed Rule. Ethanol is produced from biomass, and the carbon in biomass is of a biogenic origin --meaning that it was recently cont ained in living organic matter. For example,

emissions associated with ethanol fermentation are not counted against GHG emissions in Iowa’s reporting program because they are considered biogenic emissions. Als o, EPA has found that

“the CO 2 emitted from biomass-based fuels co mbustion does not increase atmospheric CO 2 concentrations, assuming the biogenic carbon emitted is offset by the uptake of CO 2 resulting from the growth of new biomass.” 74 Fed. Reg. 24,904, 25,039 (May 26, 2009). This also applies to biogenic emissions from fermentation.

Response: EPA has made the final deci sion not to include Subpart J as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, etha nol production facilities will still be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule, or if they meet the requirements of subpart PP.

With respect to emissions from combustion of bi omass, see the response to comment for the rule signed in 2009, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0690.1, excer pt 1 in Volume 1. With respect to

emissions associated with ethanol fermenta tion, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0508-0494.1, excerpt 20. Note that this rule does not make a determination on whether

CO 2 from biomass is offset by uptake of CO 2 from the growth of new biomass.

Commenter Name: Steven M. Pirner

Commenter Affiliation: South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SD DENR)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0576 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: EPA is not proposing to re quire reporting by suppliers of biomass-based fuels, or renewable fuels, due to the fact that greenhous e gases emitted upon combustion of these fuels are traditionally taken into account at the point of biomass production. EPA is seeking comment on this approach and notes that producers of so me biomass-based fuels (e.g., ethanol) would be subject to reporting requirements for their on-site emissions. SD DENR agrees with this approach because it avoids double counting of greenhouse gas emissions and meets the objective of the rule to collect comprehensive and accurate data which will be used to develop future policies and climate change legislation.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart J as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, etha nol production facilities will still be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule, or if they meet the requirements of subpart PP.

The final rule, like the proposed rule does not requ ire suppliers to report the biomass fuels they supply, but does require reporting of certain emi ssions from other onsite sources at biofuels

facilities that meet the thresholds in 98.2. With regard to repo rting of direct emissions from

6com bustion of biomass, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0465.1, excerpt

5.

Commenter Name: Karen St. John

Commenter Affiliation: BP America Inc. (BP)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0631.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 69

Comment: BP believes that EPA should expand the cove rage of its rule to include all “biofuel” production facilities that combust fossil fuel-bas ed fuels so long as they meet the reporting threshold, and not limit the rule to “ethanol” production facilities only.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart J as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, etha nol production facilities will still be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule, or if they meet the requirements of subpart PP.

All facilities, regardless of the sector, must re port direct emissions from stationary combustion sources if they have stationary combustion source emissions above the thre shold in the rule or contain other source categories cove red by the rule. With regard to the inclusion of biofuels

other than ethanol in industri al wastewater treatment requir ements, please see response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0631.1, excerpt 70.

Commenter Name: J. Jared Snyder

Commenter Affiliation: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1184 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: The Department recomme nds mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from the fermentation process. Significant carbon dioxi de emissions from the fermentation process provide a pure stream of carbon di oxide that is typically vented to the atmosphere, but may be captured and sequestered or sold for other indus trial applications. Accurate accounting of these emissions is necessary for determining net CO 2 emissions from ethanol production.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart J as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, etha nol production facilities will still be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule, or if they meet the requirements of subpart PP.

With respect to emissions associated with et hanol fermentation, see th e response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0494.1, excerpt 20. EPA agr ees that there may be significant CO 2 emissions from these operations and that thes e emissions may be captured and sequestered or sold for other industrial applications. To ga ther more information on these practices, EPA requires Suppliers of CO 2 to report under Subpart PP.

7Commenter Name: Bob Dinneen

Commenter Affiliation: Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0494.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Several States already require reporting fr om ethanol facilities. For example, Iowa requires GHG reporting from Title V sources and et hanol facilities. EPA should give facilities the option of utilizing reports al ready being submitted to States.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart J as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, etha nol production facilities will still be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule, or if they meet the requirements of subpart PP.

See the preamble signed in 2009 (FR 74, (page 56283)) for the response on the relationship of this rule to other programs, and EPA's commitment to working with States when implementing the final reporting rule.

Commenter Name: Bob Dinneen

Commenter Affiliation: Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0494.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment: There are several ethanol pl ants that are capturing CO 2 from the fermentation process and removing these emissions from th e atmosphere. The capture and removal of CO 2 produced by fermentation is a ne t reduction in atmospheric CO 2 , not just a reduction in CO 2 emissions. These facilities should be allowed to count these emissions against their total for determining whether the threshold is met, and th ey should be included in any reports to EPA.

Response: EPA has made the final deci sion not to include Subpart J as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, etha nol production facilities will still be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule, or if they meet the requirements of subpart PP.

With respect to CO 2 emissions associated with ethanol fermentation, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1184, excerpt 10. At this time, this rule does not address

removals of CO 2

.

89 Commenter Name: Matthew Frank

Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1062.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: The framework outlined in the propo sed rule for GHG reporting for ethanol production is straightforward, understandable and comprehensive. If EPA requires the calculation of these emissions, please iden tify the emission factors to be used.

Response: EPA has made the final deci sion not to include Subpart J as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, etha nol production facilities will still be required to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule, or if they meet the requirements of subpart PP.

Emission factors for wastewater treatment are lis ted in Table II-1 of subpart II. Wastewater treatment emissions are calculated using equations II-1 through II-6 listed § 98.353. The emission factors for stationary combustion are li sted in Tables C-1 a nd C-2 of subpart C and emissions are calculated using the equations listed in § 98.33. Fi nally the emission factors for

industrial landfills are lo cated in Table TT-1 of subpart TT a nd emissions are calculated using equation TT-6.