74592 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

day volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

and 13.95 tons per day nitrogen oxides 

(NOX). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–30107 Filed 12–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 80 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0542; FRL–9760–2] 

Supplemental Determination for 

Renewable Fuels Produced Under the 

Final RFS2 Program From Grain 

Sorghum 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a supplemental 

rule associated with the Renewable Fuel 

Standard (RFS) program. This final rule 

contains a lifecycle GHG analysis for 

grain sorghum ethanol and a regulatory 

determination that grain sorghum 

ethanol qualifies as a renewable fuel 

under the RFS Program. EPA’s analysis 

indicates that ethanol made from grain 

sorghum at dry mill facilities that use 

natural gas for process energy meets the 

lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions 

reduction threshold of 20 percent 

compared to the baseline petroleum fuel 

it would replace, and therefore qualifies 

as renewable fuel. It also contains our 

regulatory determination that grain 

sorghum ethanol produced at dry mill 

facilities using specified forms of biogas 

for both process energy and most 

electricity production, has lifecycle 

GHG emission reductions of more than 

50 percent compared to the baseline 

petroleum fuel it would replace, and 

that such grain sorghum ethanol 

qualifies as an advanced biofuel under 

the RFS Program. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 17, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0542. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jefferson Cole, Office of Transportation 

and Air Quality, Transportation and 

Climate Division, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 (MC: 

6041A); telephone number: 202–564– 

1283; fax number: 202–564–1177; email 

address: cole.jefferson@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Outline of This Preamble 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

II. Analysis of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

A. Methodology 

1. Scope of Analysis 

2. Models Used 

3. Scenarios Modeled for Impacts of 

Increased Demand for Grain Sorghum 

4. Model Modifications 

B. Results 

1. Agro-Economic Impacts 

2. International Land Use Change 

Emissions 

3. Grain Sorghum Ethanol Processing 

4. Results of Lifecycle Analysis for Ethanol 

From Grain Sorghum (Using Dry Mill 

Natural Gas) 

5. Results of Lifecycle Analysis for Ethanol 

From Grain Sorghum (Using Biogas for 

Process Energy and On-Site Electricity 

Production) 

6. Other Ethanol Processing Technologies 

C. Consideration of Lifecycle Analysis 

Results 

1. Implications for Threshold 

Determinations 

2. Consideration of Uncertainty 

D. Other Comments Received 

E. Summary 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action are those involved with the 

production, distribution, and sale of 

transportation fuels, including gasoline 

and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such 

as biodiesel and renewable diesel. 

Regulated categories include: 

Category NAICS1 codes SIC2 codes Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry ............................................ 324110 2911 Petroleum Refineries. 

Industry ............................................ 325193 2869 Ethyl alcohol manufacturing. 

Industry ............................................ 325199 2869 Other basic organic chemical manufacturing. 

Industry ............................................ 424690 5169 Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers. 

Industry ............................................ 424710 5171 Petroleum bulk stations and terminals. 

Industry ............................................ 424720 5172 Petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers. 

Industry ............................................ 454319 5989 Other fuel dealers. 

1 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

2Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to 

engage in activities that may be affected 

by today’s action. To determine whether 

your activities would be affected, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 80, 

subpart M. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding section. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 74593 

1EPA. 2010. Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA–420–R– 

10–006. http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/ 

420r10006.pdf. 

2EPA. 2010. Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA–420–R– 

10–006. http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/ 

420r10006.pdf. Additional RFS2 related documents 

can be found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/ 

renewablefuels/regulations.htm. 

II. Analysis of Lifecycle Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions 

A. Methodology 

1. Scope of Analysis 

On March 26, 2010, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published changes to the Renewable 

Fuel Standard program regulations as 

required by 2007 amendments to CAA 

211(o). This rulemaking is commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘March, 2010 RFS2 

final rule’’. As part of the March, 2010 

RFS2 final rule we analyzed various 

categories of biofuels to determine 

whether the complete lifecycle GHG 

emissions (domestic and international) 

associated with the production, 

distribution, and use of those fuels meet 

minimum lifecycle greenhouse gas 

reduction thresholds as specified in 

CAA section 211(o) (i.e., 60% for 

cellulosic biofuel, 50% for biomassbased diesel and advanced biofuel, and 

20% for other renewable fuels). Our 

final rule focused our lifecycle analyses 

on fuels that were anticipated to 

contribute relatively large volumes of 

renewable fuel by 2022 and thus did not 

cover all fuels that either are 

contributing or could potentially 

contribute to the program. In the 

preamble to the final rule, EPA 

indicated that it had not completed the 

GHG emissions impact analysis for 

several specific biofuel production 

pathways but that this work would be 

completed through supplemental 

rulemaking processes. Since the final 

rule was issued, we have continued to 

examine several additional pathways. 

On June 12, 2012, we published a 

Notice of Data Availability Concerning 

Renewable Fuels Produced From Grain 

Sorghum Under the RFS Program (see 

77 FR 34915). In that notice of data 

availability, we provided an opportunity 

for comment on EPA’s analysis of grain 

sorghum used as a feedstock to produce 

ethanol under the RFS program. Today’s 

final rule describes our lifecycle 

analysis of ethanol made from grain 

sorghum (‘‘grain sorghum ethanol’’) and 

presents our determination that grain 

sorghum ethanol qualifies as renewable 

fuel (20% lifecycle GHG reduction as 

compared to baseline fuel) or as 

advanced biofuel (50% lifecycle GHG 

reduction as compared to baseline fuel) 

if produced pursuant to specified 

pathways. The modeling approach EPA 

used in this analysis is the same general 

approach used in the March, 2010 RFS2 

final rule for lifecycle analyses of other 

biofuels.1 The March, 2010 RFS2 final 

rule preamble and Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) provides further 

discussion of our approach. 

2. Models Used 

The analysis EPA has prepared for 

grain sorghum ethanol uses the same set 

of models that was used for the March, 

2010 RFS2 final rule. To estimate the 

domestic agricultural impacts presented 

in the following sections, we used the 

Forestry and Agricultural Sector 

Optimization Model (FASOM) 

developed by Texas A&M University. To 

estimate the international agricultural 

sector impacts, we used the Food and 

Agricultural Policy and Research 

Institute international models as 

maintained by the Center for 

Agricultural and Rural Development 

(FAPRI–CARD) at Iowa State University. 

For more information on the FASOM 

and FAPRI–CARD models, refer to the 

March, 2010 RFS2 final rule preamble 

(75 FR 14670) or the March, 2010 RFS2 

final rule Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA).2 The models require a number of 

inputs that are specific to the pathway 

being analyzed, including projected 

yields of feedstock per acre planted, 

projected fertilizer use, and energy use 

in feedstock processing and fuel 

production. The docket includes 

detailed information on model inputs, 

assumptions, calculations, and the 

results of our assessment of the lifecycle 

GHG emissions performance of 

specified pathways for producing grain 

sorghum ethanol. 

3. Scenarios Modeled for Impacts of 

Increased Demand for Grain Sorghum 

To assess the impacts of an increase 

in renewable fuel volume from 

business-as-usual (what is likely to have 

occurred without the RFS biofuel 

mandates) to levels required by the 

statute, we established a control case 

and other cases for a number of biofuels 

analyzed for the March, 2010 RFS2 final 

rule. The control case included a 

projection of renewable fuel volumes 

that might be used to comply with the 

RFS renewable fuel volume mandates in 

full. The other cases are designed such 

that the only difference between a given 

case and the control case is the volume 

of an individual biofuel, all other 

volumes remaining the same. In the 

March, 2010 RFS2 final rule, for each 

individual biofuel, we analyzed the 

incremental GHG emission impacts of 

increasing the volume of that fuel to the 

total mix of biofuels needed to meet the 

EISA requirements. 

For the analysis of grain sorghum 

ethanol, we applied the same 

methodology as in the March, 2010 

RFS2 final rule. In this case, we 

compared a scenario that included 200 

million gallons of grain sorghum 

ethanol to another scenario that 

included 300 million gallons of grain 

sorghum ethanol, ensuring that all other 

renewable fuel volumes are equal 

between the two scenarios. The scenario 

with 200 million gallons of grain 

sorghum ethanol will henceforth be 

referred to as the ‘‘control case,’’ which 

was developed to account for the 

current production of grain sorghum 

ethanol which is approximately 200 

million gallons per year (see Chapter 1 

of the March, 2010 RFS2 final rule RIA). 

All other volumes for each individual 

biofuel in this new control case remain 

identical to the control case used in the 

March, 2010 RFS2 final rule. The 

scenario with 300 million gallons of 

grain sorghum ethanol will be referred 

to as the ‘‘grain sorghum’’ case. For the 

grain sorghum case, our modeling 

assumes approximately 300 million 

gallons of sorghum ethanol would be 

consumed in the United States in 2022. 

The modeled scenario includes 2.06 

billion lbs of grain sorghum to be used 

to produce the additional 100 million 

gallons of ethanol in 2022. 

Our volume scenario of 

approximately 200 million gallons of 

grain sorghum ethanol in the control 

case, and 300 million gallons in the 

grain sorghum case in 2022, is based on 

several factors including historical 

volumes of grain sorghum ethanol 

production, potential feedstock 

availability and other competitive uses 

(e.g., animal feed or exports). Our 

assessment is described further in the 

inputs and assumptions document that 

is available through the docket (EPA 

2011). Based in part on consultation 

with experts at the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and 

industry representatives, we believe that 

these volumes are reasonable for the 

purposes of evaluating the impacts of 

producing additional volumes of 

ethanol from grain sorghum. 

The FASOM and FAPRI–CARD 

models, described above, project how 

much grain sorghum will be supplied to 

ethanol production from a combination 

of increased production, decreases in 

others uses (e.g., animal feed), and 

decreases in exports, in going from the 

control case to the grain sorghum case. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
74594 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3See Memo to the Docket, Docket Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0542, Dated May 18, 2012 and 

personal communication with USDA. 

4. Model Modifications 

Based on information from industry 

stakeholders, as well as in consultation 

with USDA, both the FASOM and 

FAPRI–CARD models assume perfect 

substitution in the use of grain sorghum 

and corn in the animal feed market in 

the U.S. Therefore, when more grain 

sorghum is used for ethanol production, 

grain sorghum that is used in feed 

decreases. Either additional corn or 

additional sorghum production will be 

used in the feed market to make up for 

this decrease, depending upon the 

relative cost of additional production. 

This assumption is based on 

conversations with industry and the 

USDA, reflecting the primary use of 

sorghum in the U.S. as animal feed, just 

like corn. We received a number of 

comments in response to our Notice of 

Data Availability (NODA) for Renewable 

Fuels Produced from Grain Sorghum 

Under the RFS Program (77 FR 34915, 

June 12, 2012) that support this 

assumption. 

The United States is one of the largest 

producers and exporters of grain 

sorghum. Two other large producers of 

grain sorghum, India and Nigeria, do not 

actively participate in the global trade 

market for sorghum. Rather, all grain 

sorghum in those two countries is 

produced for domestic consumption. 

Therefore, as the U.S. diverts some of its 

exports of grain sorghum for the 

purposes of ethanol production, we 

would expect close to no reaction in the 

production levels of grain sorghum in 

India and Nigeria. Historical data on 

prices, production, and exports from 

USDA, FAOSTAT (the Statistics 

Division of the Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the U.N.), and FAPRI 

support this assumption.3 We received 

several comments in response to our 

NODA that supported our proposed 

assumption that production of grain 

sorghum in India and Nigeria is not 

impacted by changes in production and 

trade of grain sorghum in the U.S. It 

should be noted that India and Nigeria 

are unique in this behavior in regards to 

grain sorghum production, consumption 

and trade. Other countries are expected 

to vary their harvested area in response 

to changes in U.S. grain sorghum 

exports, which can be seen in Table II– 

4 below. 

B. Results 

As we did for our analysis of other 

feedstocks in the March, 2010 RFS2 

final rule, we assessed what the GHG 

emissions impacts would be from the 

use of additional volumes of sorghum 

for biofuel production. The information 

provided in this section discusses the 

assumptions and outputs of the analysis 

using the FASOM and FAPRI–CARD 

agro-economic models to determine 

changes in the agricultural and livestock 

markets. These results from FASOM and 

FAPRI–CARD are then used to 

determine the GHG emissions impacts 

due to land use change and other 

factors. Finally, we include our analysis 

of the GHG emissions associated with 

different processing pathways and how 

the choice of technologies affect the 

lifecycle GHG emissions associated with 

grain sorghum ethanol. 

As discussed in the March, 2010 RFS2 

final rule and the accompanying peer 

review, there are inherent challenges in 

reconciling the results from two 

different models. However, using two 

models provides a more complete and 

robust analysis than either model would 

be able to provide alone. We have 

attempted to align as many of the key 

assumptions as possible to get a 

consistent set of modeling results 

although there are structural differences 

in the models that account for some of 

the differences in the model results. For 

example, since FASOM is a long-term 

dynamic optimization model, short-term 

spikes are smoothed out over the five 

year reporting period. In comparison, 

the FAPRI–CARD model captures 

annual fluctuations that may include 

short-term supply and demand 

responses. In addition, some of the 

discrepancies may be attributed to 

different underlying assumptions 

pertaining to elasticities of supply and 

demand for different commodities. 

These differences, in turn, affect 

projections of imports and exports, 

acreage shifting, and total consumption 

and production of various commodities. 

1. Agro-Economic Impacts 

EPA received no significant 

comments regarding the results from the 

FASOM and FAPRI–CARD models, nor 

did EPA receive recommendations that 

the models be re-run with different 

assumptions. Therefore, the results from 

these two models are identical to those 

results presented and discussed in the 

NODA. For more detailed results, please 

refer to the NODA. Given the 

importance of the land use change 

results for our emissions analysis we are 

presenting these identical results for 

reference in this final rule. 

In the FASOM model, the increase in 

grain sorghum area harvested is 

relatively modest, at an additional 4 

thousand acres, due to the fact that 

demand for grain sorghum for use in 

ethanol production is being met by a 

shift of grain sorghum from one existing 

use (in the animal feed market) to 

another (ethanol production). Meeting 

the subsequent gap in supply of animal 

feed, however, leads to an increase of 

141 thousand corn acres in 2022. 

Another way to describe this interaction 

is that it is relatively more profitable to 

take grain sorghum out of the feed 

market for ethanol production and grow 

more corn, than it is to simply grow 

more grain sorghum for ethanol 

production. Due to the increased 

demand for corn production and 

harvested area, soybean harvested area 

would decrease by 105 thousand acres 

(corn and soybeans often compete for 

land). Other crops in the U.S., such as 

wheat, hay, and rice, are projected to 

have a net increase of 53 thousand 

acres. 

TABLE II–1—SUMMARY OF PROJECTED CHANGE IN CROP HARVESTED AREA IN THE U.S. IN 2022 IN THE FASOM MODEL

[Thousands of acres] 

Control case Grain sorghum 

case Difference 

Sorghum ...................................................................................................................................... 11,108 11,111 4 

Corn ............................................................................................................................................. 77,539 77,680 141 

Soybeans ..................................................................................................................................... 69,896 69,791 ¥105 

Other ............................................................................................................................................ 154,511 154,564 53 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 313,054 313,146 92 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 74595 

As demand for grain sorghum 

increases for ethanol production in the 

U.S., the FAPRI–CARD model estimates 

that the U.S. will decrease exports of 

grain sorghum and increase exports of 

corn to partially satisfy the gap of 

having less grain sorghum in the 

worldwide feed market. This 

combination of impacts on the world 

trade of grain sorghum and corn has 

effects both on major importers, as well 

as on other major exporters. For 

example, Mexico, one of the largest 

importers of grain sorghum, decreases 

its imports of grain sorghum and 

increases its imports of corn. Brazil also 

contributes more corn to the global 

market by increasing its exports. 

The change in trade patterns directly 

impacts the amount of production and 

harvested crop area around the world. 

Harvested crop area for grain sorghum is 

not only predicted to increase in the 

U.S., but also in Mexico (7.8 thousand 

acres) and other parts of the world. 

Worldwide grain sorghum harvested 

area outside of the U.S. would increase 

by 39.3 thousand acres. Similarly, the 

increase in the demand for corn would 

lead to an increase of 36.8 thousand 

harvested acres outside of the U.S. 

While soybean harvested area would 

decrease in the U.S., Brazil would 

increase its soybean harvested area (18.4 

thousand acres) to satisfy global 

demand. Although worldwide soybean 

harvested area decreases by 11.7 

thousand acres, non-U.S. harvested area 

increases by 11.2 thousand acres. 

Overall harvested crop area in other 

countries also increase, particularly in 

Brazil. Brazil’s total harvested area is 

predicted to increase by 32.6 thousand 

acres by 2022. This is mostly comprised 

of an increase in corn of 18.1 thousand 

acres, and an increase in soybeans of 

18.4 thousand acres, along with minor 

changes in other crops. More details on 

projected changes in world harvested 

crop area in 2022 can be found below 

in Table II–2, Table II–3, Table II–4, and 

Table II–5. 

TABLE II–2—SUMMARY OF PROJECTED CHANGE IN INTERNATIONAL (NON-U.S.) HARVESTED AREA BY COUNTRY IN 2022 

IN THE FAPRI–CARD MODEL

[Thousands of acres] 

Control case Grain sorghum 

case Difference 

Brazil ............................................................................................................................................ 137,983 138,016 33 

China ............................................................................................................................................ 272,323 272,334 11 

Africa and Middle East ................................................................................................................ 315,843 315,892 48 

Rest of World ............................................................................................................................... 1,301,417 1,301,441 24 

International Total (non-U.S.) ...................................................................................................... 2,027,567 2,027,682 115 

TABLE II–3—SUMMARY OF PROJECTED CHANGE IN INTERNATIONAL (NON-U.S.) HARVESTED AREA BY CROP IN 2022 IN

THE FAPRI–CARD MODEL

[Thousands of acres] 

Control case Grain sorghum 

case Difference 

Sorghum ...................................................................................................................................... 95,108 95,148 39 

Corn ............................................................................................................................................. 307,342 307,379 37 

Soybeans ..................................................................................................................................... 202,980 202,991 11 

Other ............................................................................................................................................ 1,422,137 1,422,165 28 

International Total (non-U.S.) ...................................................................................................... 2,027,567 2,027,682 115 

TABLE II–4—SUMMARY OF PROJECTED CHANGE IN INTERNATIONAL (NON-U.S.) GRAIN SORGHUM HARVESTED AREA BY

COUNTRY IN 2022 IN THE FAPRI–CARD MODEL

[Thousands of acres] 

Control case Grain sorghum 

case Difference 

Mexico .......................................................................................................................................... 4,569 4,576 8 

Argentina ...................................................................................................................................... 1,915 1,917 2 

India ............................................................................................................................................. 22,261 22,261 0 

Nigeria .......................................................................................................................................... 18,841 18,841 0 

Other Africa and Middle East ...................................................................................................... 37,833 37,856 23 

Rest of World ............................................................................................................................... 9,689 9,695 6 

International Total (non-U.S.) ...................................................................................................... 95,108 95,148 39 

TABLE II–5—SUMMARY OF PROJECTED CHANGE IN INTERNATIONAL (NON-U.S.) CORN HARVESTED AREA BY COUNTRY IN

2022 IN THE FAPRI–CARD MODEL

[Thousands of Acres] 

Control case Grain sorghum 

case Difference 

Africa and Middle East ................................................................................................................ 77,220 77,223 4 

Asia .............................................................................................................................................. 108,751 108,764 13 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
74596 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

4Saatchi, S.S., Harris, N.L., Brown, S., Lefsky, M., 

Mitchard, E.T.A., Salas, W., Zutta, B.R., Buermann, 

W., Lewis, S.L., Hagen, S., Petrova, S., White, L., 

Silman, M. And Morel, A. 2011. Benchmark map 

of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across 

three continents. PNAS doi: 10.1073/ 

pnas.1019576108. 

5 Gallaun, H., Zanchi, G., Nabuurs, G.J., 

Hengeveld, G., Schardt, M., Verkerk, P.J. 2010. EUwide maps of growing stock and above-ground 

biomass in forests based on remote sensing and 

field measurements. Forest Ecology and 

Management 260: 252–261. 

6Mokany, K., R.J. Raison, and A.S. Prokushkin. 

2006. Critical analysis of root:shoot ratios in 

terrestrial biomes. Global Change Biology 12: 84–96. 

TABLE II–5—SUMMARY OF PROJECTED CHANGE IN INTERNATIONAL (NON-U.S.) CORN HARVESTED AREA BY COUNTRY IN

2022 IN THE FAPRI–CARD MODEL—Continued 

[Thousands of Acres] 

Control case Grain sorghum 

case Difference 

Brazil ............................................................................................................................................ 20,935 20,953 18 

India ............................................................................................................................................. 20,176 20,180 5 

Other Latin America ..................................................................................................................... 39,599 39,594 ¥5 

Rest of World ............................................................................................................................... 40,661 40,664 2 

International Total (non-U.S.) ...................................................................................................... 307,342 307,379 37 

More detailed information on the 

agro-economic modeling can be found 

in the accompanying docket. 

2. International Land Use Change 

Emissions 

The methodology used in today’s 

assessment of grain sorghum as an 

ethanol feedstock is the same as that 

used in the March 2010 RFS2 final rule 

for analyses of other biofuel pathways. 

However, we have updated some of the 

data underlying the GHG emissions 

from international land use changes; 

therefore, we are providing additional 

detail on these modifications in this 

section. 

In our analysis, GHG emissions per 

acre of land conversion internationally 

(i.e., outside of the United States) are 

determined using the emissions factors 

developed for the March 2010 RFS2 

final rule, following IPCC guidelines. In 

addition, estimated average forest 

carbon stocks were updated based on a 

new study which uses a more robust 

and higher resolution analysis. For the 

March 2010 RFS2 final rule, 

international forest carbon stocks were 

estimated from several data sources 

each derived using a different 

methodological approach. Two new 

peer-reviewed analyses on forest carbon 

stock estimation have been completed 

since the release of the March 2010 

RFS2 final rule, one for three 

continental regions by Saatchi et al.4

and the other for the EU by Gallaun et 

al.5 We have updated our forest carbon 

stock estimates based on these new 

studies because they represent 

significant improvements as compared 

to the data used in the March 2010 RFS2 

final rule. These updated forest carbon 

stock estimates were previously used in 

EPA’s Notice of Data Availability 

Concerning Renewable Fuels Produced 

From Palm Oil Under the RFS Program 

(77 FR 4300, January 27, 2012). Forest 

carbon stocks across the tropics are 

important in our analysis of grain 

sorghum ethanol because a significant 

amount of the land use changes in the 

scenarios modelled occur in tropical 

regions such as Brazil. In the scenarios 

modelled, there are also much smaller 

amounts of land use change impacts in 

the EU related to grain sorghum ethanol 

production. In the interest of using the 

best available data, we have 

incorporated the improved forest carbon 

stocks data in our analysis of lifecycle 

GHG emissions related to grain sorghum 

ethanol. 

Preliminary results for Latin America 

and Africa from Saatchi et al. were 

incorporated into the March 2010 RFS2 

final rule, but Asia results were not 

included due to timing considerations. 

The Saatchi et al. analysis is now 

complete, and so the final map was used 

to calculate updated area-weighted 

average forest carbon stocks for the 

entire area covered by the analysis 

(Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and 

South and Southeast Asia). The Saatchi 

et al. results represent a significant 

improvement over previous estimates 

because they incorporate data from 

more than 4,000 ground inventory plots, 

about 150,000 biomass values estimated 

from forest heights measured by spaceborne light detection and ranging 

(LIDAR), and a suite of optical and radar 

satellite imagery products. Estimates are 

spatially refined at 1-km grid cell 

resolution and are directly comparable 

across countries and regions. 

In the March 2010 RFS2 final rule, 

forest carbon stocks for the European 

Union were estimated using a 

combination of data from three different 

sources. Issues with this ‘patchwork’ 

approach were that the biomass 

estimates were not comparable across 

countries due to the differences in 

methodological approaches, and that 

estimates were not spatially derived (or, 

the spatial data were not provided to 

EPA). Since the release of the final rule, 

Gallaun et al. developed EU-wide maps 

of above-ground biomass in forests 

based on remote sensing and field 

measurements. MODIS data were used 

for the classification, and 

comprehensive field measurement data 

from national forest inventories for 

nearly 100,000 locations from 16 

countries were also used to develop the 

final map. The map covers the whole 

EU, the European Free Trade 

Association countries, the Balkans, 

Belarus, the Ukraine, Moldova, 

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and 

Turkey. 

For both data sources, Saatchi et al. 

and Gallaun et al., we added 

belowground biomass to reported 

aboveground biomass values using an 

equation in Mokany et al.6

In our analysis, forest stocks are 

estimated for over 750 regions across 

160 countries. For some regions the 

carbon stocks increased as a result of the 

updates and in others they declined. For 

comparison, we ran our grain sorghum 

analysis using the old forest carbon 

stock values used in the March 2010 

RFS2 final rule and with the updated 

forest carbon values described above. 

Using the updated forest carbon stocks 

increased the land use change GHG 

emissions related to grain sorghum 

ethanol by approximately 1.2 kilograms 

of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions 

per million British thermal units of 

grain sorghum ethanol (kgCO2e/ 

mmBtu). Table II–6 includes the 

international land use change GHG 

emissions results for the scenarios 

modeled, in terms of kgCO2e/mmBtu. 

International land use change GHG 

emissions for grain sorghum are 

estimated at 30 kgCO2e/mmBtu. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 74597 

7See, e.g., ‘‘Protocol for Quantifying and 

Reporting the Performance of Anaerobic Digestion 

Systems for Livestock Manures,’’ Prepared for the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency AgSTAR 

Program, Prepared by: Eastern Research Group, Inc., 

March 2011, and ‘‘Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas 

Inventory Protocol Offset Project Methodology for 

Project Type: Managing Manure with Biogas 

Recovery Systems,’’ Climate Protection Partnerships 

Division/Climate Change Division, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, August 2008, Version 1.3. 

TABLE II–6—INTERNATIONAL LAND

USE CHANGE GHG EMISSIONS

[kgCO2e/mmBtu] 

Region Emissions 

Africa and Middle East ......... 9 

Asia ....................................... 5 

Brazil ..................................... 14 

India ...................................... 1 

Other Latin America ............. 1 

Rest of World ........................ 1 

International Total (non-U.S.) 30 

More detailed information on the land 

use change emissions can be found in 

the accompanying docket. 

3. Grain Sorghum Ethanol Processing 

The dry milling process is the ethanol 

production process considered here for 

producing ethanol from grain sorghum. 

In the dry milling process, the grain 

sorghum is ground and fermented to 

produce ethanol. The remaining 

distillers grains (DG) are then either left 

wet if used in the near-term or dried for 

longer term use as animal feed. 

For this analysis, the amount of grain 

sorghum used for ethanol production as 

modeled by the FASOM and FAPRI– 

CARD models was based on yield 

assumptions built into those two 

models. Specifically, the models assume 

sorghum ethanol yields of 2.71 gallons 

per bushel for dry mill plants (yields 

represents pure ethanol). 

As per the analysis done in the March 

2010 RFS2 final rule, the energy 

consumed and emissions generated by a 

renewable fuel plant must be allocated 

not only to the renewable fuel 

produced, but also to each of the byproducts. For grain sorghum ethanol 

production, this analysis accounts for 

the DG co-product use directly in the 

FASOM and FAPRI–CARD agricultural 

sector modeling described in the NODA. 

DG are considered a replacement animal 

feed and thus reduce the need to make 

up for the grain sorghum production 

that went into ethanol production. Since 

FASOM takes the production and use of 

DG into account, no further allocation 

was needed at the ethanol plant and all 

plant emissions are accounted for there. 

As described in the NODA, the GHG 

emissions from production of ethanol 

from grain sorghum were calculated in 

the same way as other fuels analyzed as 

part of the March 2010 RFS final rule. 

The GHG emissions were calculated by 

multiplying the amount of the different 

types of energy inputs at the grain 

sorghum ethanol plant (e.g., natural gas, 

coal, biogas, electricity) by emissions 

factors for production and use of those 

energy sources. 

The NODA described how purchased 

fuel and electricity use for grain 

sorghum ethanol production was based 

on the energy use information for corn 

ethanol production from the March 

2010 RFS final rule analysis. These 

numbers reflect future plant energy use 

to represent plants that would be built 

to meet future requirements for 

increased renewable fuel use, as 

opposed to current or historic data on 

energy used in ethanol production. The 

numbers also reflect adjustments to 

account for the fact that converting grain 

sorghum to ethanol will result in 

slightly different energy use based on 

the difference in the grains and how 

they are processed. 

Process energy at the plant includes 

natural gas, coal, or biogas used in 

boilers to produce steam, in dryers, in 

thermal oxidizers or used in other 

production or process equipment. 

Process electricity is used for running 

pumps, conveyers, fans, lights, and 

other electrical equipment. Specifically 

related to the fuel production process, 

electricity can be produced on-site or 

purchased/received from an off-site 

supplier. 

The emissions associated with energy 

used at grain sorghum ethanol facilities, 

varies significantly among plants with 

respect to the production process, type 

of fuel used (e.g., coal versus natural 

gas), and whether electricity used at the 

facility comes from the grid or is 

produced from low-GHG emissions 

fuels such as biogas from landfills, 

waste treatment plants and/or waste 

digesters. Variation also exists between 

the same type of plants using the same 

fuel source based on the design of the 

production process such as the 

technology used to separate the ethanol 

from the water, the extent to which the 

DG are dried and whether other coproducts are produced. Such different 

pathways were considered for ethanol 

made from corn. Since for the most part 

these same production processes are 

available for ethanol produced from 

sorghum, our analyses considered a 

similar set of production pathways for 

grain sorghum ethanol production. Our 

focus was to differentiate among 

facilities based on key differences, 

namely the type of plant, the type of 

fuel used and source of electricity. 

For grain sorghum, we analyzed 

several combinations of different 

process technologies and fuels to 

determine their impacts on lifecycle 

GHG emissions. This section describes 

the different GHG impacts associated 

with alternative processing technology 

and fuel options and outlines specific 

process pathways that would be needed 

to meet different GHG threshold 

requirements. 

The NODA discussed how several 

technologies and fuel choices affect 

emissions. Process energy fuel choice 

has a significant impact on emissions 

from a sorghum ethanol plant. 

Switching from natural gas to biogas 

from landfills, waste treatment plants 

and/or waste digesters, for example, was 

shown to reduce lifecycle GHG 

emissions by approximately 20 

percentage points. Therefore, use of 

such biogas provides a way for grain 

sorghum ethanol plants to reduce their 

GHG emissions. However, in order for 

the biogas to count as a GHG reduction 

mechanism under the grain sorghum 

ethanol pathways discussed in this 

rulemaking it has to come from 

landfills, waste treatment plants, or 

waste digesters. The reason for this is 

that those sources of biogas are assumed 

to have zero upstream GHG impacts. 

We received comments on the GHG 

emissions associated with the use of 

biogas as a process energy source, 

specifically for biogas from manure 

digesters. Development and operation of 

a manure digester system results in 

fugitive methane and other emissions, 

though their use also means emissions 

associated with alternative manure 

disposal methods are avoided. Putting 

in place a manure digester and 

capturing methane will result in a 

change of emissions from the existing 

disposal method. There is guidance 

available for calculating these emission 

changes.7 Based on one application of 

this guidance, one commenter indicated 

that the upstream GHG impacts of 

biogas production from a manure 

digester would be a net increase in GHG 

emissions. Another commenter using 

their own application of the guidance 

indicated that there would be a net 

reduction in upstream GHG emissions 

from the use of biogas from a manure 

digester. 

The differences in net emission 

estimates from manure digesters depend 

upon the assumptions about the 

alternative manure disposal methods. If 

the alternative disposal methods would 

not have resulted in significant 

emissions (e.g., if no methane were 

generated or if the methane generated 

were captured and destroyed) then the 

installation of a manure digester could 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
74598 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

8 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

and Sinks: 1990–2010, U.S. EPA Section 6.2. 

9 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

and Sinks: 1990–2010, U.S. EPA Annex 3 Section 

3.10, the emissions factors used in calculating 

methane emissions from manure management do 

not include methane capture. EPA is not aware of 

any current or planned regulations that would 

require methane capture and destruction from 

existing manure management activities. 

lead to an increase in emissions. On the 

other hand, if there would have been 

significant emissions from an alternative 

disposal method that would be avoided, 

then the installation of a manure 

digester would result in a decrease in 

net emissions. EPA’s approach for 

projecting the net emissions from 

manure digesters for the sorghum 

lifecycle GHG calculations was to 

assume effectively zero net emissions 

from digester biogas. This assumption is 

consistent with our treatment of biogas 

emissions in previous RFS rulemakings. 

Given the uncertainty in the range of 

possible alternative manure disposal 

emissions, we feel this approach is 

reasonable. In order for biogas from 

manure digesters to result in positive 

net GHG emissions, the emissions from 

the alternative disposal method would 

have to be close to zero. This would 

only be the case with limited types of 

disposal in which the decomposition of 

the manure was mainly aerobic and 

does not result in methane emissions, 

such as land application. Although the 

majority of manure in the United States 

is handled as a solid, producing little 

CH4, the general trend in manure 

management is one of increasing use of 

liquid systems. The shift in manure 

management practices is due in part to 

a shift toward larger livestock facilities 

which typically use liquid manure 

management systems. Liquid systems 

have higher potential CH4 emissions 

than dry systems.8 Alternatively, the 

existing disposal methods could have 

emissions close to zero if they were 

capturing methane emissions and 

destroying them, which is not generally 

happening in current practice.9 It is 

possible that use of manure digesters 

could provide a net GHG benefit as 

compared to alternative disposal 

methods. However, we also do not have 

enough information to include a generic 

GHG offset reduction for manure 

digesters at this time. Assuming zero net 

emissions for present purposes appears 

reasonable given the range of 

possibilities. We plan to seek comment 

on the possible use of manure digester 

offsets as part of a future rulemaking 

and clarify their use for this and other 

pathways in Table 1 to § 80.1426. 

Interested parties using manure 

digesters may also submit a petition 

under the 40 CFR 80.1416 petition 

process. 

We also received comments to expand 

the discussion to include ‘‘biomass 

energy’’ that is not restricted to only 

biogas in the context of a fuel source 

from landfills, waste treatment plants, 

and waste digesters. The comments 

point to existing pathways in Table 1 to 

§ 80.1426 that include the use of biogas 

or biomass. We plan to clarify the 

meaning of the term biomass through a 

separate rulemaking and will consider 

the comments of adding biomass as a 

process energy source to the grain 

sorghum ethanol pathway at that time. 

In the interim, we believe it is preferable 

to issue today’s rule identifying two 

qualifying grain sorghum ethanol 

pathways without delay. Doing so 

allows producers using these pathways 

the opportunity to generate RINs while 

EPA evaluates adding a definition of 

biomass as an energy source for use in 

biofuel production. 

Another factor that influences GHG 

impacts from process energy use is the 

percentage of DG that are dried. If a 

plant is able to reduce the amount of DG 

it dries, process energy use and GHG 

emissions decrease. The impact of going 

from 100% dry DG to 100% wet DG is 

larger for natural gas plants 

(approximately a 10% reduction in 

overall GHG emissions relative to the 

petroleum baseline) compared to biogas 

plants because biogas plants already 

have low emissions from process 

energy. 

The NODA also discussed how 

production facilities that utilize 

combined heat and power (CHP) 

systems can also reduce GHG emissions 

relative to less efficient system 

configurations. The CHP system 

configuration considered in the NODA 

calculations were based on using a 

boiler to power a turbine generator unit 

that produces electricity, and using 

waste heat to produce process steam. 

There are provisions in our regulations 

stating that combined heat and power 

(CHP), also known as cogeneration, 

refers to industrial processes in which 

waste heat from the production of 

electricity is used for process energy in 

the renewable fuel production facility. 

Table 2 to § 80.1426 includes combined 

heat and power such that, on a calendar 

year basis, at least 90% of the thermal 

energy associated with ethanol 

production (including thermal energy 

produced at the facility and that which 

is derived from an off-site waste heat 

supplier), exclusive of any thermal 

energy used for the drying of distillers 

grains and solubles, is used to produce 

electricity prior to being used to meet 

the process heat requirements of the 

facility. 

We received comments that these 

current provisions only describe ‘‘top 

cycle’’ (high pressure) CHP systems. 

Commenters requested that we also 

allow other types of CHP configurations 

(e.g., ‘‘low pressure’’ CHP systems). EPA 

recognizes that there are many different 

types of CHP configurations and that 

some types that do not fit our current 

regulatory provisions could have similar 

GHG reductions. 

Although not exhaustive, Table II–7 

shows the amount of process fuel and 

electricity from the grid used at a grain 

sorghum ethanol facility for the 

different technology and fuel options in 

terms of Btu/gal of ethanol produced. 

The energy use at dry mill ethanol 

plants was based on ASPEN models 

developed by USDA and updated to 

reflect changes in technology out to 

2022 as described in the March 2010 

RFS2 final rule Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) Chapter 1. The work 

done on grain ethanol production for 

the March 2010 RFS2 final rule was 

based on converting corn to ethanol. 

Converting grain sorghum to ethanol 

will result in slightly different energy 

use based on difference in the grains 

and how they are processed. The same 

ASPEN USDA models used for corn 

ethanol in the final rule were also 

developed for grain sorghum ethanol. 

Based on the numbers from USDA, a 

sorghum ethanol plant uses 96.3% of 

the thermal process energy of a corn 

ethanol plant (3.7% less), and 99.3% of 

the electrical energy (0.7% less). 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 74599 

TABLE II–7—PROCESS FUEL AND ELECTRICITY OPTIONS AT GRAIN SORGHUM ETHANOL FACILITIES

[Btu/gallon of ethanol produced] 

Fuel type and technology Natural gas 

use Biogas use Grid electricity use 

Sorghum Ethanol—Dry Mill Natural Gas 

No CHP, 100% Wet DG .............................................................................................................. 16,449 ........................ 2,235 

Yes CHP, 100% Wet DG ............................................................................................................ 18,605 ........................ 508 

No CHP, 0% Wet DG .................................................................................................................. 27,599 ........................ 2,235 

Yes CHP, 0% Wet DG ................................................................................................................ 29,755 ........................ 508 

Sorghum Ethanol—Dry Mill Biogas 

No CHP, 100% Wet DG .............................................................................................................. ........................ 16,449 2,235 

Yes CHP, 100% Wet DG ............................................................................................................ ........................ 18,605 508 

No CHP, 0% Wet DG .................................................................................................................. ........................ 27,599 2,235 

Yes CHP, 0% Wet DG ................................................................................................................ ........................ 29,755 508 

As shown in Table II–7, the difference 

between CHP and non-CHP plants is 

reflected in their use of different 

amounts of primary energy (natural gas 

or biogas) and the amount of electricity 

used from the grid. The difference in 

electricity used from the grid is 

independent of the quantity of dry DG. 

Furthermore, as the GHG calculations 

are based on the amount of fuel used 

times an emission factor plus the 

amount of electricity used from grid 

times an emissions factor, the use of 

CHP versus some other type of 

electricity generation system only 

matters for natural gas plants. Although 

less biogas would be needed if CHP is 

used versus standard electricity 

generation using biogas, the GHG 

emissions are the same since the 

emission factor for biogas (when it 

comes from landfills, waste treatment 

plants and/or waste digesters) is zero. 

Therefore, because the only advanced 

biofuel pathway we are adopting today 

for the production of grain sorghum 

ethanol involves use of biogas for onsite electricity production, we do not 

need to specify that CHP be used. We 

have therefore modified the final rule to 

instead specify that for the advanced 

biofuel grain sorghum pathway, biogas 

from landfills, waste treatment plants 

and/or waste digesters must be used for 

on-site electricity production, and we 

have provided an allowance for a 

certain amount of grid-purchased 

electricity that would still be consistent 

with a finding of 50% lifecycle GHG 

reduction as compared to baseline fuel. 

Any configuration of CHP, or a non-CHP 

system, could be used for the on-site 

generation of electricity using biogas. 

We have also included conforming 

changes to the regulatory registration, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements, to require verification of 

the amount of grid electricity used at 

facilities using this pathway. 

The conforming changes include 

adding a new paragraph (f)(13) to 

Section 80.1426 describing detailed 

requirements for the purchase, 

measurement and use of biogas and 

electricity from the grid for facilities 

using the advanced biofuel grain 

sorghum pathway. We have also 

amended Section 80.1450 describing 

registration requirements for facilities 

using the advanced biofuel grain 

sorghum pathway. Sections 80.1451 and 

80.1454 are also amended to specify 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for this pathway. 

The following Table II–8 shows the 

mean lifecycle GHG reductions 

compared to the baseline petroleum fuel 

for a number of different grain sorghum 

ethanol production technology 

pathways including natural gas and 

biogas fired plants. In the following 

section, we provide detailed analysis of 

the lifecycle GHG emissions for two 

scenarios. The first is for a dry mill 

grain sorghum ethanol plant that uses 

natural gas for process energy; the 

second is for a dry mill grain sorghum 

ethanol plant that uses biogas for both 

process energy and for on-site electricity 

production. These two scenarios were 

chosen as examples of feasible 

technology that a plant can use to 

generate either conventional or 

advanced fuel. 

TABLE II–8—LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR CERTAIN DRY MILL GRAIN SORGHUM ETHANOL FACILITIES

[% change compared to petroleum gasoline] 

Fuel type and technology % Change 

Sorghum Ethanol—Dry Mill Natural Gas 

No On-Site Electricity Production, 100% Wet DG .............................................................................................................................. ¥33 

On-Site Electricity Production, using 0.15 kWh electricity from the grid per gallon of ethanol, 100% Wet DG ................................ ¥36 

No On-Site Electricity Production, 0% Wet DG .................................................................................................................................. ¥22 

On-Site Electricity Production, using 0.15 kWh electricity from the grid per gallon of ethanol, 0% Wet DG .................................... ¥25 

Sorghum Ethanol—Dry Mill Biogas 

No On-Site Electricity Production, 100% Wet DG .............................................................................................................................. ¥48 

On-Site Electricity Production, using 0.15 kWh electricity from the grid per gallon of ethanol, 100% Wet DG ................................ ¥53 

No On-Site Electricity Production, 0% Wet DG .................................................................................................................................. ¥47 

On-Site Electricity Production, using 0.15 kWh electricity from the grid per gallon of ethanol, 0% Wet DG .................................... ¥52 

The 0.15 kWh was based on data in Table II–7 converted to kWh per gallon. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
74600 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

10The 95% confidence interval around that 

midpoint results in range of a 19% reduction to a 

44% reduction compared to the 2005 gasoline fuel 

baseline. 

11Totals in the table may not sum due to 

rounding. 

The docket for this final rule provides 

more details on our key model inputs 

and assumptions (e.g., crop yields, 

biofuel conversion yields, and 

agricultural energy use). These inputs 

and assumptions are based on our 

analysis of peer-reviewed literature and 

consideration of recommendations of 

experts from within the grain sorghum 

and ethanol industries, USDA, and 

academic institutions. 

4. Results of Lifecycle Analysis for 

Ethanol From Grain Sorghum (Using 

Dry Mill Natural Gas) 

Consistent with our approach for 

analyzing other pathways, our analysis 

for grain sorghum ethanol includes a 

mid-point estimate as well as a range of 

possible lifecycle GHG emission results 

based on uncertainty analysis 

conducted by the Agency. The graph 

below (Figure II–1) depicts the results of 

our analysis (including the uncertainty 

in our land use change modeling) for 

grain sorghum ethanol produced in a 

plant that uses natural gas and produces 

the current industry average of 92% wet 

DG. 

Lifecycle GHG emissions equivalent 

to the statutory gasoline fuel baseline 

are represented on the graph by the zero 

on the X-axis. The midpoint of the range 

of results is a 32% reduction in GHG 

emissions compared to the 2005 

gasoline baseline.10 As in the case of 

other biofuel pathways analyzed as part 

of the March 2010 RFS2 final rule, the 

range of results shown in Figure II–1 is 

based on our assessment of uncertainty 

regarding the location and types of land 

that may be impacted as well as the 

GHG impacts associated with these land 

use changes (see Section II.B.1. for 

further information). 

Table II–9 breaks down by stage the 

lifecycle GHG emissions for a natural 

gas fired grain sorghum ethanol plant 

with 92% wet DG in 2022 and the 

statutory 2005 gasoline baseline.11

Results are included using our midpoint estimate of land use change 

emissions, as well as with the low and 

high end of the 95% confidence 

interval. Net agricultural emissions 

include impacts related to changes in 

crop inputs, such as fertilizer, energy 

used in agriculture, livestock 

production and other agricultural 

changes in the scenarios modeled. The 

fuel production stage includes 

emissions from ethanol production 

plants including drying 8% of the DG. 

Fuel and feedstock transport includes 

emissions from transporting bushels of 

harvested grain sorghum from the farm 

to the ethanol production facility, as 

well as the emissions associated with 

transporting ethanol from the 

production facility to the fuel-blending 

facility. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with ER17DE12.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 74601 

12The 95% confidence interval around that 

midpoint results in range of a 38% reduction to a 

64% reduction compared to the 2005 gasoline fuel 

baseline. 

TABLE II–9—LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS FOR GRAIN SORGHUM ETHANOL PRODUCED IN DRY MILL PLANTS THAT USE

NATURAL GAS FOR PROCESS ENERGY AND PRODUCE 92% WET DISTILLERS GRAINS

[gCO2e/mmBtu] 

Fuel type Grain sorghum 

ethanol 

2005 gasoline 

baseline 

Net Agriculture (w/o land use change), Domestic and International ...................................................... 12,698 

Land Use Change, Mean (Low/High), Domestic and International ........................................................ 27,620 (16,196/ 

41,903) 

Fuel Production ........................................................................................................................................ 22,111 19,200 

Fuel and Feedstock Transport ................................................................................................................ 3,661 * 

Tailpipe Emissions ................................................................................................................................... 880 79,004 

Total Emissions, Mean (Low/High) .................................................................................................. 66,971 (55,547/ 

81,254) 

98,204 

Midpoint Lifecycle GHG Percent Reduction Compared to Petroleum Baseline ..................................... 32% 

* Emissions included in fuel production stage. 

5. Results of Lifecycle Analysis for 

Ethanol From Grain Sorghum (Using 

Biogas for Process Energy and On-Site 

Electricity Production) 

The graph below (Figure II–2) depicts 

the results of our analysis (including the 

uncertainty in our land use change 

modeling) for grain sorghum ethanol 

produced in a dry mill plant that 

produces 0% wet DG and uses biogas 

for process energy and for on-site 

production of all electricity other than 

0.15 kWh of grid electricity per gallon 

of ethanol produced. 

Figure II–2 shows the percent 

difference between lifecycle GHG 

emissions for the 2005 petroleum 

gasoline fuel baseline and for 2022 grain 

sorghum ethanol produced in a plant 

that dries 100% of its DG, uses only 

biogas as process energy and uses biogas 

to produce all electricity used on site 

except for 0.15 kWh of grid electricity 

per gallon of ethanol produced. 

Lifecycle GHG emissions equivalent to 

the statutory gasoline fuel baseline are 

represented on the graph by the zero on 

the X-axis. The midpoint of the range of 

results for this sorghum ethanol plant 

configuration is a 52% reduction in 

GHG emissions compared to the 2005 

gasoline baseline.12 As in the case of 

other biofuel pathways analyzed as part 

of the March 2010 RFS2 final rule, the 

range of results shown in Figure II–2 is 

based on our assessment of uncertainty 

regarding the location and types of land 

that may be impacted as well as the 

GHG impacts associated with these land 

use changes (see Section II.B.1). These 

results justify our determination that 

sorghum ethanol produced in dry mill 

plants that dry any amount of DG and 

use only biogas (from landfills, waste 

treatment plants and/or waste digesters) 

for process energy and production of 

electricity used on site, other than 0.15 

kWh of electricity from the grid per 

gallon of ethanol produced, meet the 

50% lifecycle GHG reduction threshold 

required for the generation of advanced 

renewable fuel RINs. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
74602 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

13Totals in the table may not sum due to 

rounding. 

Table II–10 breaks down by stage the 

lifecycle GHG emissions for grain 

sorghum ethanol in 2022 produced 

through this pathway and the statutory 

2005 gasoline baseline.13 Results are 

included using our mid-point estimate 

of land use change emissions, as well as 

with the low and high end of the 95% 

confidence interval. Net agricultural 

emissions include impacts related to 

changes in crop inputs, such as 

fertilizer, energy used in agriculture, 

livestock production and other 

agricultural changes in the scenarios 

modeled. Emissions from fuel 

production include emissions from 

ethanol production and drying 100% of 

the DG. Fuel and feedstock transport 

includes emissions from transporting 

bushels of harvested grain sorghum 

from the farm to ethanol production 

facility, as well as the emissions 

associated with transporting ethanol 

from the production facility to the fuelblending facility. 

TABLE II–10—LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS FOR GRAIN SORGHUM ETHANOL PRODUCED IN DRY MILL PLANTS THAT

PRODUCE 0% WET DG AND USE ONLY BIOGAS (FROM LANDFILLS, WASTE TREATMENT PLANTS, AND/OR WASTE DIGESTERS) FOR PROCESS ENERGY AND ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION, EXCEPT FOR 0.15 KWH OF ELECTRICITY FROM

THE GRID PER GALLON OF ETHANOL PRODUCED

[gCO2e/mmBtu] 

Fuel type Grain sorghum 

ethanol 

2005 gasoline 

baseline 

Net Agriculture (w/o land use change), Domestic and International ...................................................... 12,698 ................................

Land Use Change, Mean (Low/High), Domestic and International ........................................................ 27,620 (16,196/ 

41,903) 

................................


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with ER17DE12.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 74603 

TABLE II–10—LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS FOR GRAIN SORGHUM ETHANOL PRODUCED IN DRY MILL PLANTS THAT

PRODUCE 0% WET DG AND USE ONLY BIOGAS (FROM LANDFILLS, WASTE TREATMENT PLANTS, AND/OR WASTE DIGESTERS) FOR PROCESS ENERGY AND ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION, EXCEPT FOR 0.15 KWH OF ELECTRICITY FROM

THE GRID PER GALLON OF ETHANOL PRODUCED—Continued 

[gCO2e/mmBtu] 

Fuel type Grain sorghum 

ethanol 

2005 gasoline 

baseline 

Fuel Production ........................................................................................................................................ 1,612 19,200 

Fuel and Feedstock Transport ................................................................................................................ 4,276 * 

Tailpipe Emissions ................................................................................................................................... 880 79,004 

Total Emissions, Mean (Low/High) .................................................................................................. 47,086 (35,662/ 

61,369) 

98,204 

Midpoint Lifecycle GHG Percent Reduction Compared to Petroleum Baseline ..................................... 52% 

* Emissions included in fuel production stage. 

6. Other Ethanol Processing 

Technologies 

In the NODA we stated our intention 

to address other broadly applicable 

ethanol production technologies that 

have the potential to reduce lifecycle 

GHG emissions through a separate 

rulemaking. In the NODA, we provided 

a brief description of the use of 

electricity that is derived from 

renewable and non-carbon sources, such 

as wind power, solar power, 

hydropower, biogas or biomass as power 

for process units and equipment, and 

capturing and sequestering CO2

emissions from an ethanol plant. We 

received comments supporting the use 

of electricity that is derived from 

renewable and non-carbon sources as 

power for process units and equipment. 

We also received comments supporting 

the use of capturing and sequestering 

CO2 emissions as part of the RFS2 

program. Due to the range of issues 

before us, and the fact that these issues 

can pertain to more than just the 

sorghum pathways, we intend to assess 

these technologies in a separate action 

and will consider at that time the 

comments received in response to the 

NODA and whether to broaden the 

number of grain sorghum ethanol 

pathways that may qualify for RIN 

generation. 

C. Consideration of Lifecycle Analysis 

Results 

1. Implications for Threshold 

Determinations 

As discussed above, EPA’s analysis 

shows that, based on the mid-point of 

the range of results, ethanol produced 

from grain sorghum using biogas (from 

landfills, waste treatment plants and/or 

waste digesters) for process heat and to 

produce all electricity used on-site, 

other than 0.15 kWh of electricity from 

the grid per gallon of ethanol produced 

at a dry mill plant drying any amount 

of DG would meet the 50 percent GHG 

emissions reduction threshold needed 

to qualify as an advanced biofuel (D–5 

RINs). Grain sorghum ethanol meets the 

20% lifecycle GHG emissions reduction 

threshold for conventional biofuels (D– 

6 RINs) when natural gas or biogas is 

used for process energy at a dry mill 

plant, regardless of how much DG is 

dried. Therefore, Table 1 to Section 

80.1426 is modified to add these new 

pathways. Table II–11 illustrates how 

these new pathways are included in the 

existing table. 

TABLE II–11—PATHWAYS AND APPLICABLE D CODES FOR GRAIN SORGHUM ETHANOL

Fuel type Feedstock Production process requirements D-Code 

Ethanol .................................... Grain Sorghum ....................... Dry mill process using biogas from landfills, waste treatment 

plants, and waste digesters, and/or natural gas, for process energy.

6 

Ethanol .................................... Grain Sorghum ....................... Dry mill process, using only biogas from landfills, waste treatment plants, and waste digesters for process energy and 

for on-site production of all electricity used at the site other 

than up to 0.15 kWh of electricity from the grid per gallon 

of ethanol produced.

5 

2. Consideration of Uncertainty 

EPA’s threshold determinations for 

grain sorghum ethanol are based on the 

weight of evidence currently available. 

For this pathway, the evidence 

considered includes the mid-point 

estimate as well as the range of results 

based on statistical uncertainty and 

sensitivity analyses conducted by the 

Agency. EPA has weighed all of the 

evidence, while placing the greatest 

weight on the best-estimate value for the 

scenarios analyzed. 

As part of our assessment of the grain 

sorghum ethanol pathway, we have 

identified key areas of uncertainty in 

our analysis. Although there is 

uncertainty in all portions of the 

lifecycle modeling, we focused our 

analysis on the factors that are the most 

uncertain and have the biggest impact 

on the results. The indirect international 

emissions are the component of our 

analysis with the highest level of 

uncertainty. The type of land that is 

converted internationally and the 

emissions associated with this land 

conversion are critical issues that have 

a large impact on the GHG emissions 

estimates. 

Our analysis of land use change GHG 

emissions includes an assessment of 

uncertainty that focuses on two aspects 

of indirect land use change—the types 

of land converted and the GHG 

emissions associated with different 

types of land converted. These areas of 

uncertainty were estimated statistically 

using the Monte Carlo analysis 

methodology developed for the March, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
74604 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

14The Monte Carlo analysis is described in EPA 

(2010a), Section 2.4.4.2.8. 

2010 RFS2 final rule.14 Figure II–1 and 

Figure II–2 show the results of our 

statistical uncertainty assessment. 

The docket for this final rule provides 

more details on all aspects of our 

analysis of grain sorghum ethanol. 

D. Other Comments Received 

We received other comments that 

suggested that if we are to calculate 

certain indirect emissions and costs of 

renewable fuels (e.g., land use, and 

energy used for extraction), the same 

should be included for petroleum fuels 

that are being displaced. These 

comments were similar to comments we 

responded to in the March, 2010 final 

RFS rule. Commenters did not provide 

any new information or data that would 

cause us to re-evaluate our methodology 

that was described in more detail in the 

March, 2010 RFS2 final rule. Therefore, 

we are not making the suggested 

modifications to our lifecycle analysis at 

this time. 

We also received comments regarding 

the situation where a facility could be 

characterized under two or more 

separate pathways. For example a 

facility co-processing different 

feedstocks, like corn and sorghum, and 

using two different process energy 

sources simultaneously, like natural gas 

and biogas with on-site electricity 

production. The commenters asked if 

different RINs could be produced based 

on the different pathways represented 

by the different feedstocks and process 

energy sources used. In response, we 

note that 40 CFR § 80.1426(f)(3)(i)–(vi) 

addresses a number of options for the 

generation of RINs when renewable fuel 

production can be described by two or 

more pathways. In situations not 

covered by the regulations, parties may 

submit a petition to EPA pursuant to 

80.1416. 

E. Summary 

Based on our GHG lifecycle analysis 

as discussed above, today’s rule 

includes two pathways for ethanol 

produced from grain sorghum 

feedstocks. One pathway will allow the 

generation of D code 6 RINs for grain 

sorghum ethanol produced by a natural 

gas or biogas fired dry mill facility that 

dries any amount of DG. A second 

pathway will allow producers of grain 

sorghum ethanol to generate advanced 

(D code 5) RINs if they use only biogas 

for process energy and on-site electricity 

production and use no more than 0.15 

kWh of electricity from the grid per 

gallon of ethanol produced. In both 

cases, of course, RINs may only be 

generated if the fuel meets other 

definitional criteria for renewable fuel 

(e.g., produced from renewable biomass 

as defined in the March, 2010 RFS2 

final rule regulations, and used to 

reduce or replace the quantity of fossil 

fuel present in transportation fuel, 

heating oil or jet fuel). In order to 

qualify for RIN generation, the fuel must 

meet all other requirements specified in 

the Clean Air Act and the RFS 

regulations at 40 CFR part 80 Subpart 

M. Parties that produce ethanol through 

either pathway must do so in a matter 

that is consistent with current 

regulations. Failure to do so may result 

in invalid RINs and penalties. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. The 

corrections, clarifications, and 

modifications to the March, 2010 RFS2 

final regulations contained in this rule 

are within the scope of the information 

collection requirements submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for the March, 2010 RFS2 final 

regulations. 

OMB has approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations at 40 CFR part 80, 

subpart M under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control numbers 2060–0637 and 2060– 

0640. The OMB control numbers for 

EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this action on small entities, 

I certify that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule will not impose any new 

requirements on small entities. Rather, 

we expect that this rule may have a 

positive impact on entities that would 

now have the opportunity to generate 

advanced RINs, where they may have 

been unable to prior to this rule. The 

relatively minor corrections and 

modifications this rule makes to the 

March, 2010 RFS2 final regulations do 

not impact small entities. 

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. We 

have determined that this action will 

not result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for the above parties 

and thus, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. It 

only applies to gasoline, diesel, and 

renewable fuel producers, importers, 

distributors and marketers. 

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. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 74605 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It applies to gasoline, diesel, and 

renewable fuel producers, importers, 

distributors and marketers. This action 

does not impose any enforceable duties 

on communities of Indian tribal 

governments. 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 E.O. 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 E.O. has the potential to influence 

the regulation. This action is not subject 

to E.O. 13045 because it does not 

establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

‘‘This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 

(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866.’’ 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (E.O.) 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 rule will 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. 

These amendments would not relax the 

control measures on sources regulated 

by the RFS regulations and therefore 

would not cause emissions increases 

from these sources. 

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. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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 the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal 

Authority 

Statutory authority for the rule 

finalized today can be found in section 

211 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

7545. Additional support for today’s 

rule comes from Section 301(a) of the 

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7542, and 

7601(a). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agriculture, Air pollution control, 

Confidential business information, 

Diesel fuel, Energy, Forest and forest 

products, Fuel additives, Gasoline, 

Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle 

pollution, Penalties, Petroleum, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 30, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 80 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS 

AND FUEL ADDITIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 80 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521(1), 7545 

and 7601(a). 

■ 2. Section 80.1426 (f)(1) is amended 

by adding two new entries in Table 1 for 

‘‘Ethanol’’ to the end of the table and 

adding paragraph (f)(13) to read as 

follows: 

§ 80.1426 How are RINs generated and 

assigned to batches of renewable fuel by 

renewable fuel producers or importers? 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 80.1426—APPLICABLE D CODES FOR EACH FUEL PATHWAY FOR USE IN GENERATING RINS

Fuel type Feedstock Production process requirements D Code 

*******

Ethanol ..................................... Grain Sorghum ....................... Dry mill process using biogas from landfills, waste treatment 

plants, and/or waste digesters, and/or natural gas, for 

process energy.

6 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
74606 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO § 80.1426—APPLICABLE D CODES FOR EACH FUEL PATHWAY FOR USE IN GENERATING RINS—Continued 

Fuel type Feedstock Production process requirements D Code 

Ethanol ..................................... Grain Sorghum ....................... Dry mill process, using only biogas from landfills, waste 

treatment plants, and/or waste digesters for process energy and for on-site production of all electricity used at the 

site other than up to 0.15 kWh of electricity from the grid 

per gallon of ethanol produced, calculated on a per batch 

basis.

5 

* * * * * 

(13) In order for facilities to satisfy the 

requirements of the advanced biofuel 

grain sorghum pathway all of the 

following conditions (in addition to 

other applicable requirements) apply. 

(i) The quantity of electricity used at 

the site that is purchased from the grid 

must be measured and recorded by 

continuous metering. 

(ii) All electricity used on-site that is 

not purchased from the grid must be 

produced on-site from biogas from 

landfills, waste treatment plants, and/or 

waste digesters. 

(iii) For biogas directly transported to 

the facility without being placed in a 

commercial distribution system, all of 

the following conditions must be met: 

(A) The producer has entered into a 

written contract for the procurement of 

biogas that specifies the volume of 

biogas, its heat content, and that the 

biogas must be derived from a landfill, 

waste treatment plant and/or waste 

digester. 

(B) The volume of biogas was sold to 

the renewable fuel production facility, 

and to no other facility. 

(C) The volume and heat content of 

biogas injected into the pipeline and the 

volume of gas used at the renewable fuel 

production facility are measured by 

continuous metering. 

(iv) Reserved 

(v) For biogas that has been gathered, 

processed and injected into a common 

carrier pipeline, all of the following 

conditions must be met: 

(A) The producer has entered into a 

written contract for the procurement of 

biogas that specifies a specific volume 

of biogas, with a specific heat content, 

and that the biogas must be derived 

from a landfill, waste treatment plant 

and/or waste digester. 

(B) The volume of biogas was sold to 

the renewable fuel production facility, 

and to no other facility. 

(C) The volume of biogas that is 

withdrawn from the pipeline is 

withdrawn in a manner and at a time 

consistent with the transport of fuel 

between the injection and withdrawal 

points. 

(D) The volume and heat content of 

biogas injected into the pipeline and the 

volume of gas used at the renewable fuel 

production facility are measured by 

continuous metering. 

(E) The common carrier pipeline into 

which the biogas is placed ultimately 

serves the producer’s renewable fuel 

facility. 

(vi) No party relied upon the 

contracted volume of biogas for the 

creation of RINs. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 80.1450 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(1)(ix) to read as 

follows: 

§ 80.1450 What are the registration 

requirements under the RFS program? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ix)(A) For a producer of ethanol from 

grain sorghum or a foreign ethanol 

producer making product from grain 

sorghum and seeking to have it sold as 

renewable fuel after addition of 

denaturant, provide a plan that has been 

submitted and accepted by U.S. EPA 

that includes the following information: 

(1) Locations from which the biogas 

used at the facility was produced or 

extracted. 

(2) Name of suppliers of all biogas 

used at the facility. 

(3) An affidavit from each biogas 

supplier stating its intent to supply 

biogas to the renewable fuel producer or 

foreign ethanol producer, the quantity 

and energy content of the biogas that it 

intends to provide to the renewable fuel 

producer or foreign ethanol producer, 

and that the biogas will be derived 

solely from landfills, waste treatment 

plants, and/or waste digesters. 

(4) If the producer intends to generate 

advanced biofuel RINs, estimates of the 

total amount of electricity used from the 

grid, the total amount of ethanol 

produced, and a calculation of the 

amount of electricity used from the grid 

per gallon of ethanol produced. 

(5) If the producer intends to generate 

advanced biofuel RINs, a description of 

how the facility intends to demonstrate 

and document that not more than 0.15 

kWh of grid electricity is used per 

gallon of ethanol produced, calculated 

on a per batch basis, at the time of RIN 

generation. 

(B) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 80.1451 is amended by 

redesignating paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(S) as 

(b)(1)(ii)(T) and adding a new paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)(S) to read as follows: 

§ 80.1451 What are the reporting 

requirements under the RFS program? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(S) Producers of advanced biofuel 

using grain sorghum shall report all of 

the following: 

(1) The total amount of electricity that 

is purchased from the grid and used at 

the site, based on metering, in kWh. 

(2) Total amount of ethanol produced. 

(3) Calculation of the amount of grid 

electricity used at the site per gallon of 

ethanol produced in each batch. 

(4) Each batch number as specified in 

§ 80.1452(b). 

(5) Reference ID for documents 

required by § 80.1454(k)(2)(D). 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 80.1454(k) is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 80.1454 What are the recordkeeping 

requirements under the RFS program? 

* * * * * 

(k)(1) biogas and electricity in 

pathways involving feedstocks other 

than grain sorghum. A renewable fuel 

producer that generates RINs for biogas 

or electricity produced from renewable 

biomass (renewable electricity) for fuels 

that are used for transportation pursuant 

to § 80.1426(f)(1) and (11), or that uses 

process heat from biogas to generate 

RINs for renewable fuel pursuant to 

§ 80.1426(f)(12) shall keep all of the 

following additional records: 

(i) Contracts and documents 

memorializing the sale of biogas or 

renewable electricity for use as 

transportation fuel relied upon in 

§ 80.1426(f)(10), § 80.1426(f)(11), or for 

use of biogas for use as process heat to 

make renewable fuel as relied upon in 

§ 80.1426(f)(12), and the transfer of title 

of the biogas or renewable electricity 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 74607 

and all associated environmental 

attributes from the point of generation to 

the facility which sells or uses the fuel 

for transportation purposes. 

(ii) Documents demonstrating the 

volume and energy content of biogas, or 

kilowatts of renewable electricity, relied 

upon under § 80.1426(f)(10) that was 

delivered to the facility which sells or 

uses the fuel for transportation 

purposes. 

(iii) Documents demonstrating the 

volume and energy content of biogas, or 

kilowatts of renewable electricity, relied 

upon under § 80.1426(f)(11), or biogas 

relied upon under § 80.1426(f)(12), that 

was placed into the common carrier 

pipeline (for biogas) or transmission line 

(for renewable electricity). 

(iv) Documents demonstrating the 

volume and energy content of biogas, or 

kilowatts of renewable electricity, relied 

upon under § 80.1426(f)(12) at the point 

of distribution. 

(v) Affidavits from the biogas or 

renewable electricity producer and all 

parties that held title to the biogas or 

renewable electricity confirming that 

title and environmental attributes of the 

biogas or renewable electricity relied 

upon under § 80.1426(f)(10) and 

(11) were used for transportation 

purposes only, and that the 

environmental attributes of the biogas 

relied upon under § 80.1426(f)(12) were 

used for process heat at the renewable 

fuel producer’s facility, and for no other 

purpose. The renewable fuel producer 

shall create and/or obtain these 

affidavits at least once per calendar 

quarter. 

(vi) The biogas or renewable 

electricity producer’s Compliance 

Certification required under Title V of 

the Clean Air Act. 

(vii) The biogas or renewable 

electricity producer’s Compliance 

Certification required under Title V of 

the Clean Air Act. 

(viii) Such other records as may be 

requested by the Administrator. 

(2) Biogas and electricity in pathways 

involving grain sorghum as feedstock. 

(i) Contracts and documents 

memorializing the purchase and sale of 

biogas and the transfer of biogas from 

the point of generation to the ethanol 

production facility. 

(ii) If the advanced biofuel pathway is 

used, documents demonstrating the 

total kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity 

used from the grid, and the total kWh 

of grid electricity used on a per gallon 

of ethanol basis, pursuant to 

§ 80.1426(f)(13). 

(iii) Affidavits from the producer of 

biogas used at the facility, and all 

parties that held title to the biogas, 

confirming that title and environmental 

attributes of the biogas relied upon 

under § 80.1426(f)(13) were used for 

producing ethanol at the renewable fuel 

production facility and for no other 

purpose. The renewable fuel producer 

shall obtain these affidavits at least once 

per calendar quarter. 

(iv) The biogas producer’s 

Compliance Certification required under 

Title V of the Clean Air Act. 

(v) Such other records as may be 

requested by the Administrator. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–30100 Filed 12–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket ID FEMA–2012–0003; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–8259] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule identifies 

communities where the sale of flood 

insurance has been authorized under 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP) that are scheduled for 

suspension on the effective dates listed 

within this rule because of 

noncompliance with the floodplain 

management requirements of the 

program. If the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) receives 

documentation that the community has 

adopted the required floodplain 

management measures prior to the 

effective suspension date given in this 

rule, the suspension will not occur and 

a notice of this will be provided by 

publication in the Federal Register on a 

subsequent date. Also, information 

identifying the current participation 

status of a community can be obtained 

from FEMA’s Community Status Book 

(CSB). The CSB is available at http:// 

www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm. 

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective 

date of each community’s scheduled 

suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) 

listed in the third column of the 

following tables. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you want to determine whether a 

particular community was suspended 

on the suspension date or for further 

information, contact David Stearrett, 

Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administration, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2953. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP 

enables property owners to purchase 

Federal flood insurance that is not 

otherwise generally available from 

private insurers. In return, communities 

agree to adopt and administer local 

floodplain management measures aimed 

at protecting lives and new construction 

from future flooding. Section 1315 of 

the National Flood Insurance Act of 

1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, 

prohibits the sale of NFIP flood 

insurance unless an appropriate public 

body adopts adequate floodplain 

management measures with effective 

enforcement measures. The 

communities listed in this document no 

longer meet that statutory requirement 

for compliance with program 

regulations, 44 CFR part 59. 

Accordingly, the communities will be 

suspended on the effective date in the 

third column. As of that date, flood 

insurance will no longer be available in 

the community. We recognize that some 

of these communities may adopt and 

submit the required documentation of 

legally enforceable floodplain 

management measures after this rule is 

published but prior to the actual 

suspension date. These communities 

will not be suspended and will continue 

to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood 

insurance. A notice withdrawing the 

suspension of such communities will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood 

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that 

identifies the Special Flood Hazard 

Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. 

The date of the FIRM, if one has been 

published, is indicated in the fourth 

column of the table. No direct Federal 

financial assistance (except assistance 

pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act not in connection with a 

flood) may be provided for construction 

or acquisition of buildings in identified 

SFHAs for communities not 

participating in the NFIP and identified 

for more than a year on FEMA’s initial 

FIRM for the community as having 

flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This 

prohibition against certain types of 

Federal assistance becomes effective for 

the communities listed on the date 

shown in the last column. The 

Administrator finds that notice and 

public comment procedures under 5 

U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and 

unnecessary because communities listed 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with