Interaction with Tailoring Rule

 Would it be appropriate for EPA to address in the proposed rule, how this rule interfaces with 

the Tailoring Rule? Regulated categories and entities affected by this action include production, 

distribution and sale of transportation fuels, and the industries identified within the table on 

page 8. It is understood that the table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather to provide the 

reader with a guide for regulated entities. All regulated “categories” in the table are industrial 

sources, and the focus of this proposed rule is transportation fuels. At least one of the 

industrial source categories in the Table on page 8 of this proposed rule is also listed in Table 1 

of the Deferral for CO2 Emissions from Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources Under the

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Programs (See the July 20, 2011 

deferral posted at this website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-20/pdf/2011-

17256.pdf). 

o Would it be possible that a regulated industry could have greenhouse gas emissions 

exempted under one regulation and regulated, or subject to the accounting framework 

under another regulation? Would the Scientific Advisory Board draft reports that focus 

on CO2 Accounting for Emissions from Biogenic Sources be useful in sorting through this 

issue? 

(http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/2f9b572c712ac52e8525783100704886!

OpenDocument&TableRow=2.2#2.)

o If the Tailoring Rule accounting decisions are to be made in 2014, how will EPA reconcile 

the decisions made on RFS to reflect these policies? One commenter suggested 

delaying the pathway decisions on the RFS rule until the Tailoring Rule accounting policy 

has been finalized. 

EPA Response: This action proposes new qualifying pathways for the RFS program by analyzing their 

lifecycle GHG emissions (LCA). Our LCA approach in this proposal is based on the specific statutory 

requirements for the RFS program, and follows the same LCA methodologies relied upon in previous RFS 

rulemakings (which also went through notice and comment rulemaking). The proposed regulations 

referenced by the commenter address stationary source permitting under a different part of the Clean 

Air Act. The emissions accounting issues EPA is exploring in the PSD deferral rulemaking arise in the 

context of a regulatory program with a statutory foundation that is very different from the RFS 

provisions at issue in this rulemaking. 

This RFS proposal does not raise issues with respect to the proposed PSD deferral rule, as the LCA 

methodology used in this proposal is the same as we have used in prior RFS rulemakings. This proposal 

does not change the context for the PSD deferral rule. This RFS proposal uses the same methodology as 

the prior RFS rulemakings, and the methodology is based on implementing the requirements of the 

specific statutory provisions involved with the RFS program. 

We understand the issues about which the commenter is inquiring, and the relevant offices within EPA 

have been and will continue to coordinate on topics related to accounting of biogenic emissions. Within 

EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, the Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), which has 

responsibility for implementing the RFS program, has worked closely with the three offices that have 

been examining issues related to biogenic emissions and the PSD program: the Office of Atmospheric 

Programs (OAP), the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), and the Office of General 
Counsel (OGC). Staff from all relevant offices have worked together to analyze applicable programmatic 

and legal requirements and to identify and discuss relevant scientific and technical concepts. OTAQ has 

been involved in discussions related to the Draft Accounting Framework for Biogenic CO2 Emissions 

From Stationary Sources, along with the associated Science Advisory Board (SAB) peer review process, 

and OTAQ staff regularly provide information on activities underway within the RFS program to 

counterparts in OAP. This coordination is ongoing.

Given the status of the deferral rule and the as yet unresolved questions regarding how biogenic CO2 

emissions should be addressed considering the relevant portions of the Clean Air Act, it is premature to 

consider how any future decisions by EPA in the context of the PSD program might differ from what is 

required by statute for the RFS program. For purposes of this NPRM, the relevant legal and regulatory 

requirements, and the accounting approach EPA developed for lifecycle emissions, stem from 211 (o) of 

the Act. For these reasons there is also no reason to delay this RFS rulemaking.

On page 19 it is stated that “EPA thus determined that all of the fuel generated from the 

biogenic portion of separated MSW would be considered cellulosic biofuel [when assigning 

RIN]”. This statement does not seem to be consistent with the Tailoring Rule concerning the 

exemption of biogenic CO2 emissions. 

EPA Response: The quotation from page 19 of the NPRM refers to a determination that was part of the 

March 2010 RFS Final Rule and not a decision made as part of this NPRM. The quote does not address 

LCA, but instead concerns a simplifying assumption EPA made for practical reasons concerning the type 

of renewable biomass found in separated MSW. 

Under the Tailoring Rule Deferral mentioned above, the emissions of “CO2 from the combustion 

of biogas collected from biological decomposition of waste in landfills, wastewater treatment or 

manure management processes” are all being evaluated under the deferral. The concern is that 

the RFS program would allocate RINs to a source that is fully or partially regulated under the 

biogenic portion of the Tailoring Rule. In this scenario, EPA would be endorsing the GHG 

emission benefits with RINs under RFS and possibly regulating the GHG emissions from biogenic 

sources under the Tailoring Rule.

o What interactions will the RFS rule have with the offset provisions of the Tailoring rule? 

On page 21 it states, “EPA is proposing that biofuel made from the following cellulosic 

feedstocks will be able to generate applicable cellulosic RINs for 100% of the volume 

produced: crop residue; slash; pre-commercial thinnings and tree residue; annual cover 

crops; switchgrass; and miscanthus.” All of these feedstocks (crop residue, slash, precommercial thinnings and tree residue, annual cover crops, switchgrass, miscanthus, 

napiergrass, giant reed, energy cane, etc.) along with many others are being discussed 

under the Tailoring Rule Deferral. Comment suggests that EPA lay out the interactions 

between the rules, particularly the interactions between RIN and offset markets, as it 

may be confusing to affected entities when 100% of RINs under RFS are allocated and 

point source GHG emissions are discounted via the Tailoring rule.

EPA Response: The feedstocks listed are already eligible to generate cellulosic RINs, as described in the 

March 2010 RFS Final Rule. In fact, one of the major goals of the RFS program was to incentivize 

production of biofuels from these cellulosic feedstocks. This NPRM does not change that. The only 

change being proposed is a clarification about whether all of a biofuel produced from the feedstock such 
as switchgrass can qualify as cellulosic biofuel or only the portion that derives directly from cellulose, 

hemicelluloses and lignin. The quoted text refers to this question. 

The issue we are addressing here is a technical question related to how the renewable fuel is 

categorized (i.e., which of the four categories of renewable fuel is this fuel categorized as), and does not 

concern the LCA for the biofuel. See our response above for more information regarding this proposal 

and EPA’s PSD proposal, which implements different provisions of the Clean Air Act.