*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 1 of 107

EO12866_New Fuel Pathways Rule under RFS2 2060-AR07 FRM FRN_20130204

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542; FRL-9686-3]

RIN 2060-AR07

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Identification of Additional Qualifying Renewable 

Fuel Pathways under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a final rule identifying additional fuel pathways that EPA has 

determined meet the biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel or cellulosic biofuel lifecycle 

greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction requirements specified in Clean Air Act section 211(o), the 

Renewable Fuel Standard Program, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007 (EISA). This final rule describes EPA’s evaluation of biofuels produced from camelina oil, 

energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass; it also includes an evaluation of renewable gasoline 

and renewable gasoline blendstocks, as well as biodiesel from esterification, and clarifies our 

definition of renewable diesel. The inclusion of these pathways creates additional opportunity

and flexibility for regulated parties to comply with the advanced and cellulosic requirements of 

EISA and provides the certainty necessary for investments to bring these biofuels into 

commercial production from these new feedstocks.

We are also finalizing two changes to Table 1 to § 80.1426. The first change identifies 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 2 of 107

separate pathways by letter, to facilitate references to specific pathways. The second change 

adds "rapeseed" to the existing pathway for renewable fuel made from canola oil. We are also 

correcting an inadvertent omission to the proposal which incorrectly omitted a pathway for 

producing naphtha from switchgrass and miscanthus; this pathway was included in the original 

RFS2 final rule. 

This final rule adds these pathways to Table 1 to § 80.1426 as pathways which have been 

determined to meet one or more of the GHG reduction thresholds specified in CAA 211(o), and 

assigns each pathway a corresponding D-Code. It allows producers or importers of fuel 

produced pursuant to these pathways to generate Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), 

providing that the fuel meets the other requirements specified in the RFS regulations to qualify it 

as renewable fuel.

DATES: This rule is effective on [Insert date 60 days from date of publication in the Federal 

Register].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent Camobreco, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality (MC6401A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-9043; fax 

number: (202) 564-1686; email address: camobreco.vincent@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Does This Action Apply to Me?

Entities potentially affected by this action are those involved with the production, 

distribution, and sale of transportation fuels, including gasoline and diesel fuel or renewable 

fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Regulated categories and entities affected by this action 

include:
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 3 of 107

Category NAICS1

Codes

SIC

2

Codes

Examples of Potentially Regulated Entities

Industry

Industry

Industry

Industry

Industry

Industry

Industry

324110

325193

325199

424690

424710

424720

454319

2911

2869

2869

5169

5171

5172

5989

Petroleum Refineries

Ethyl alcohol manufacturing

Other basic organic chemical manufacturing

Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers

Petroleum bulk stations and terminals

Petroleum and petroleum products merchant 

wholesalers

Other fuel dealers

1 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

2

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers 

regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that 

EPA is now aware could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed 

in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, 

you should carefully examine the applicability criteria of Part 80, subparts D, E and F of title 40 

of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have any question regarding applicability of this 

action to a particular entity, consult the person in the preceding FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section above. 

Outline of This Preamble
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 4 of 107

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of this Regulatory Action

II. Identification of Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways under the Renewable 

Fuel Standard (RFS) Program

A. Summary of Comments on Invasive Species

B. Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Biodiesel, Renewable Diesel, 

Jet Fuel, Heating Oil, Naphtha, and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Produced from 

Camelina Oil

C. Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Ethanol, Diesel, Jet Fuel, 

Heating Oil, and Naphtha Produced from Energy Cane, Giant Reed, and Napier grass

D. Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Certain Renewable Gasoline 

and Renewable Gasoline Blendstocks Pathways

E. Esterification Production Process Inclusion for Specified Feedstocks Producing 

Biodiesel

III. Additional Changes to Listing of Available Pathways in Table 1 of 80.1426

IV. 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 Risks 

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

V. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of this Regulatory Action

In this rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to identify additional fuel pathways that we 

have determined meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction requirements under the Renewable 

Fuel Standard (RFS) program. This final rule describes EPA’s evaluation of biofuels produced 

from camelina oil, which qualify as biomass-based diesel or advanced biofuel, as well as biofuels 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 5 of 107

from energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass, all of which qualify as cellulosic biofuel. This 

final rule also qualifies renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock made from certain 

qualifying feedstocks as cellulosic biofuel. Finally, this rule clarifies the definition of renewable 

diesel to explicitly include jet fuel. .

EPA is taking this action as a result of changes to the RFS program in Clean Air Act 

(“CAA”) Section 211(o) required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(“EISA”). This rulemaking modifies the RFS regulations published at 40 CFR § 80.1400 et. seq. 

The RFS program regulations specify the types of renewable fuels eligible to participate in the 

RFS program and the procedures by which renewable fuel producers and importers may generate 

Renewable Identification Numbers (“RINs”) for the qualifying renewable fuels they produce 

through approved fuel pathways. See 75 FR 14670 (March 26, 2010); 75 FR 26026 (May 10, 

2010); 75 FR 37733 (June 30, 2010); 75 FR 59622 (September 28, 2010); 75 FR 76790 

(December 9, 2010); 75 FR 79964 (December 21, 2010); 77 FR 1320 (January 9, 2012); and 77 

FR 74592 (December 17, 2012).

By qualifying these new fuel pathways, this rule provides opportunities to increase the 

volume of advanced, low-GHG renewable fuels— such as cellulosic biofuels— under the RFS 

program. EPA’s comprehensive analyses show significant lifecycle GHG emission reductions 

from these fuel types, as compared to the baseline gasoline or diesel fuel that they replace. 

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action In Question 

This final rule describes EPA’s evaluation of: 

Camelina oil (new feedstock)

 Biodiesel, and renewable diesel, (including jet fuel, and heating oil) — qualifying to 

generate biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel RINs
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 6 of 107

 Naphtha and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) — qualifying to generate advanced 

biofuel RINs

Energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass cellulosic biomass (new feedstocks)

 Ethanol, renewable diesel (including renewable jet fuel and heating oil), and 

renewable gasoline blendstock— qualifying to generate cellulosic biofuel RINs

Renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock (new fuel types)

 Produced from crop residue, slash, pre-commercial thinnings, tree residue, annual 

cover crops, and cellulosic components of separated yard waste, separated food 

waste, and separated municipal solid waste (MSW) 

 Using the following processes — all utilizing natural gas, biogas, and/or biomass as 

the only process energy sources — qualifying to generate cellulosic biofuel RINs: 

o Thermochemical pyrolysis

o Thermochemical gasification

o Biochemical direct fermentation

o Biochemical fermentation with catalytic upgrading 

o Any other process that uses biogas and/or biomass as the only process energy

sources

This final rule adds these pathways to Table 1 to § 80.1426. This final rule allows 

producers or importers of fuel produced under these pathways to generate RINs in accordance 

with the RFS regulations, providing that the fuel meets other definitional criteria for renewable 

fuel. The inclusion of these pathways creates additional opportunity and flexibility for regulated 

parties to comply with the requirements of EISA. Substantial investment has been made to 

commercialize these new feedstocks, and the cellulosic biofuel industry in the United States 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 7 of 107

continues to make significant advances in its progress towards large scale commercial 

production. Approval of these new feedstocks will help further the Congressional intent to 

expand the volumes of cellulosic and advanced biofuels.

We are also finalizing two changes to Table 1 to 80.1426 that were proposed on July 1, 

2011(76 FR 38844). The first change adds ID letters to pathways to facilitate references to 

specific pathways. The second change adds "rapeseed" to the existing pathway for renewable 

fuel made from canola oil. 

II. Identification of Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways under the Renewable 

Fuel Standard (RFS) Program

This rule was originally published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2012 as a direct 

final rule, with a parallel publication of a proposed rule. Although only a limited number of 

relevant adverse comments were received, EPA was required to issue a withdrawal notice of the 

direct final rule on March 5, 2012 (77 FR 13009). A second comment period was not issued, 

since the simultaneous publication of the proposed rule provided an adequate notice and 

comment process. EPA has addressed the comments received in this final rule, although most of 

the analysis presented is similar to the information in the proposed rule. EPA is including all of 

the information again in this document to avoid potential confusion raised by the withdrawal 

process. 

In this action, EPA is issuing a final rule to identify in the RFS regulations additional 

renewable fuel production pathways that we have determined meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) 

reduction requirements of the RFS program. There are three critical components of a renewable 

fuel pathway: (1) fuel type, (2) feedstock, and (3) production process. Each specific combination 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 8 of 107

of the three components, or fuel pathway, is assigned a D code which is used to designate the 

type of biofuel and its compliance category under the RFS program. This final rule describes 

EPA’s lifecycle GHG evaluation of camelina oil, energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass. 

Determining whether a fuel pathway satisfies the CAA’s lifecycle GHG reduction 

thresholds for renewable fuels requires a comprehensive evaluation of the lifecycle GHG 

emissions of the renewable fuel as compared to the lifecycle GHG emissions of the baseline 

gasoline or diesel fuel that it replaces. As mandated by CAA section 211(o), the GHG emissions 

assessments must evaluate the aggregate quantity of GHG emissions (including direct emissions 

and significant indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes) related to 

the full fuel lifecycle, including all stages of fuel and feedstock production, distribution, and use 

by the ultimate consumer. 

In examining the full lifecycle GHG impacts of renewable fuels for the RFS program, 

EPA considers the following: 

 Feedstock production – based on agricultural sector models that include direct and 

indirect impacts of feedstock production

 Fuel production – including process energy requirements, impacts of any raw materials 

used in the process, and benefits from co-products produced.

 Fuel and feedstock distribution – including impacts of transporting feedstock from 

production to use, and transport of the final fuel to the consumer.

 Use of the fuel – including combustion emissions from use of the fuel in a vehicle.

Many of the pathways evaluated in this rulemaking rely on a comparison to the lifecycle 

GHG analysis work that was done as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Final 

Rule, published March 26, 2010. The evaluations here rely on comparisons to the existing 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 9 of 107

analysies presented in the March 2010 final rule. EPA plans to periodically review and revise 

the methodology and assumptions associated with calculating the GHG emissions from all 

renewable fuel pathways. 

A. Summary of Comments on Invasive Species

In response to the proposed rule, EPA received comments highlighting the concern that 

by approving certain new feedstock types under the RFS program, EPA would be encouraging 

their introduction or expanded planting without considering their potential impact as invasive 

species.1 The degree of concern expressed by the commenters depended somewhat on the 

feedstock. As pointed out by the commenters, camelina and energy cane are not “native 

species,” defined as “a species that, other than as a result of an introduction, historically occurred 

or currently occurs in that ecosystem.” The commenters asserted that there is a “potential risk 

posed by the non-native species camelina and energy cane.” In contrast, comments stated that 

Arundo donax (giant reed) and napier grass have been identified as invasive species in certain 

parts of the country. These commenters asserted that the Arundo donax and napier grass pose a 

“clear risk of invasion.” Commenters stated that EPA should not approve the proposed 

feedstocks until EPA has conducted an invasive species analysis, as required under Executive 

Order (EO) 13112.

EPA also received comments stating that Arundo donax is not “invasive” as defined by 

EO 13112, since Arundo donax “only presents problems of invasiveness in riparian areas prone 

 

1 Comment submitted by Jonathan Lewis, Senior Counsel, Climate Policy, Clean Air Task Force et al., dated 

February 6, 2012. Document ID # EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542-0118. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 10 of 107

to torrential flooding... giant reed has been grown responsibly in numerous places...without 

problems of invasiveness.”2 

EO 13112,

3

signed in February 1999, calls for each Federal agency whose actions may

affect the status of invasive species “to the extent practicable and permitted by law”:

 identify such actions; 

 subject to the availability of appropriations, and within Administration budgetary limits, 

use relevant programs and authorities to: (i) prevent the introduction of invasive species; 

(ii) detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a costeffective and environmentally sound manner; (iii) monitor invasive species populations 

accurately and reliably; (iv) provide for restoration of native species and habitat 

conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded; (v) conduct research on invasive 

species and develop technologies to prevent introduction and provide for environmentally

sound control of invasive species; and (vi) promote public education on invasive species 

and the means to address them; and

 not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the

introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere unless, 

pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public 

its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm 

caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of 

harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.

 Federal agencies shall pursue the duties set forth in this section in consultation with the 

 

2Comment submitted by R. Timothy Columbus and Christopher G. Falcone, Steptoe & Johnson LLP on behalf of 

The Chemtex Group, dated February 13, 2012. Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542-0124. 

3

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-02-08/pdf/99-3184.pdf
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 11 of 107

Invasive Species Council, consistent with the Invasive Species Management Plan and in 

cooperation with stakeholders, as appropriate, and, as approved by the Department of 

State, when Federal agencies are working with international organizations and foreign 

nations.”

5

The Executive Order defines “invasive species” as an alien species whose introduction 

does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” The 

Executive Order calls for agencies to address the issue of invasive species “to the extent 

practicable and permitted by law,” in situations where agencies “authorize, fund, or carry out

actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive 

species.” 

In this rulemaking, EPA is determining whether certain biofuels meet the statutory 

requirements for renewable fuel, which is defined in terms of a specified percent reduction in a 

lifecycle emissions of GHGs compared to the lifecycle emissions for a baseline gasoline or 

diesel. The focus of this rulemaking is the lifecycle analysis for the production and use of 

biofuels, with cultivation of the crops used as feedstock as a critical component of the GHG 

lifecycle analysis of the biofuel. 

None of the feedstocks included in this rulemaking are currently on the Federal Noxious 

Weed List.

6 However, this list is not exhaustive and is generally limited to species that are not 

currently in the U.S. or are incipient to the U.S. Arundo donax is listed as a noxious or invasive 

 

5

EO 13112 § 2(a)-(b) (1999).

6

http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=Federal&statefips=&sort=sc. Accessed on March 28, 2012. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 12 of 107

species by Texas,

7 Nevada,8

and California,

9

and these states have programs in place to address 

invasive species concerns. Several other states also consider Arundo donax a plant of 

concern,10, , ,and napier grass is currently not recommended in Florida because of invasive 

potential.14 

As discussed below, EPA’s lifecycle analysis of the biofuel assumes that if these 

feedstocks are grown for biofuel production for the RFS program, they are controlled to grow 

within their intended borders. Based on this assumption, in the lifecycle analysis EPA does not 

account for any expenditures of energy or other sources of GHGs to remediate the spread of 

these species from the specific locations where it is grown as a renewable fuel feedstock for the 

RFS program. EPA is not in a position to estimate the magnitude of GHG emissions that might 

be associated with any such remediation if the plants are not controlled in this manner at these 

locations. EPA is not ready at this time to make a determination about the percent reduction in 

lifecycle GHG emissions and whether it satisfies the threshold reduction in GHGs required under 

the Act, absent such an assumption. Therefore EPA believes it is prudent to require renewable 

fuel producers to demonstrate that the production of Arundo donax and napier grass as a 

feedstock for a renewable fuel is consistent with this assumption, as part of the pathway

approved in this rulemaking. The information before us does not raise significant concerns about 

the threat of invasiveness and related GHG emissions for camelina and energy cane. Neither 

camelina nor energy cane are listed on any state invasive species or noxious weed lists, and 

 

7

See http://info.sos.state.tx.us/fids/200701978-1.html. Accessed on March 30, 2012. 

8

See http://agri.nv.gov/nwac/PLANT_NoxWeedList.htm. Accessed on May 23, 2012

9

Seehttp://pi.cdfa.ca.gov/pqm/manual/pdf/107.pdf. Accessed on March 30, 2012. 

10 See http://www.gaeppc.org/list.cfm. Accessed on May 23, 2012.

14 IFAS Assessment of Non-native Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas, 2009. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 13 of 107

therefore we are not requiring that this demonstration be made for these feedstocks. 

As part of the registration, recordkeeping, and reporting (RRR) requirements of the RFS 

program, EPA will have to approve a risk mitigation plan, submitted by the producer, that 

demonstrates the production of Arundo donax or napier grass will not pose a significant risk of 

spread beyond the planting area of the feedstock used for production of the renewable fuel. In 

the alternative, EPA will have to determine, based on information and data submitted by the 

producer, that no risk mitigation plan is needed because under the circumstances present Arundo 

donax or napier grass do not pose a significant risk of spread beyond the planting area of the 

feedstock used for production of the renewable fuel. Registration of the producer or importer 

will require either EPA approval of a risk mitigation plan or an EPA determination that no plan 

is needed based on the determination noted above. RINs may not be generated for that facility

using that feedstock pathway absent such approval or determination. These RRR requirements 

are described in more detail below. 

Section 211(o) of the CAA defines renewable fuel as fuel produced from renewable 

biomass, and defines categories of renewable fuel in terms of reductions in lifecycle GHG 

emissions compared to the baseline gasoline or diesel fuel. Section 211(o)(1)(B),(D),(E),(J). 

The definition of renewable biomass also specifies certain conditions that biomass must meet to 

be considered renewable biomass. Section 211(o)(1)(I). The definitions of renewable biomass 

and renewable fuel do not refer to the wide variety of factors other than greenhouse gases that 

may relate to the impact of the biomass or the fuel on air quality, the environment, and various 

other impacts. Separately, Congress does specify that EPA is to consider these kinds of factors, 

including environmental impacts of the production and use of renewable fuels, in the context of 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 14 of 107

determining the required volumes of renewable fuel for years where Congress does not specify

specific volumes. Section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii). In addition, Congress mandated that EPA conduct 

certain studies and provide reports to Congress on air quality impacts and other issues besides 

greenhouse gas impacts associated with the RFS program. See CAA section 211(q), (v) and 

Section 204 of EISA. Given the text and structure of section 211(o), EPA does not consider 

environmental factors other than the lifecycle analysis of GHG emissions and the definition of 

renewable biomass in determining whether a fuel produced from biomass is a renewable fuel for 

purposes of the RFS program. The requirements summarized above and discussed in more detail 

below are a reasonable way to implement this authority when considering Arundo donax and 

napier grass as a feedstock for renewable fuel under the RFS program. 

EPA developed those requirements recognizing there are a number of state, federal, and 

local mechanisms in place that could be used to reduce the potential invasive impacts of Arundo 

donax or napier grass. For example, if producers were to apply for the Biomass Crop Assistance 

Program (BCAP), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) would require an 

environmental assessment that analyzes the risk of invasiveness. In addition, USDA’s 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) can also impose restrictions on farmers interested in 

growing Arundo donax on CRP land. Other statutory and regulatory requirements are also in 

place that would restrict the growing patterns of these feedstocks for use in the RFS program. 

For example, as required by EISA, any crop used to produce fuel for the RFS program would 

have to meet the definition of renewable biomass, and could therefore only be planted on 

existing agricultural land.

Furthermore, invasive species are controlled and regulated under various existing federal 

and state guidelines. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 15 of 107

States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates noxious weeds under the authority of the 

Plant Protection Act (PPA). APHIS names the regulated weeds in the noxious weed regulations 

(7 CFR 360) in order to ensure transparency. Listed species may not be imported into the United 

States, or moved interstate, without a special permit. 

The risk posed by potentially invasive feedstocks may be greatly reduced through the use 

of best practices.17 Commenters referenced the voluntary best practices document developed 

jointly by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the NC State 

University Cooperative Extension, and the Biofuel Center of North Carolina. Many of the 

recommendations developed in this document are similar to the best practices USDA describes 

for the management of similar energy crops such as switchgrass and miscanthus.18 For example, 

both USDA and the North Carolina voluntary standards recommend developing management 

plans that avoid sites without buffer areas and production in floodplains. 

The risk of potentially invasive feedstocks is also controlled by some states. For 

example, in Florida, biomass plantings are governed by FL Rule 5B-57.011. According to the 

rule, a permit for biomass plantings is required for two contiguous acres within one parcel of 

land for any plant used for biomass production. The purpose of the permitting process is to 

control the introduction into, or movement within, Florida of plant species intended for biomass 

plantings. One provision of the process is that no biomass permit shall be issued for any planting 

of plants on the state noxious weed list or the federal noxious weed list. In 2009, a company, 

 

17 Comment submitted by R. Timothy Columbus and Christopher G. Falcone, Steptoe & Johnson LLP on behalf of 

the Biofuels Center of North Carolina and the Institute for Sustainable and Renewable Resources, dated February 

13, 2012. Document ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542-0123

18 See http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044768.pdf
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 16 of 107

White Technologies LLC, applied for and received a permit to grow 80 acres of Arundo donax 

under the Florida program. 

Under Oregon State Statutes, Chapter 570, § 570.405 the Oregon Department of 

Agriculture may establish control areas, if after careful investigation it determines that such areas 

are necessary for the general protection of the horticultural, agricultural or forest industries of the 

state from diseases, insects, animals or noxious weeds. In March of 2011, the State created a 

control area for Arundo donax in Morrow and Umatilla Counties. The regulation, with 

restrictions, allowed for up to 400 acres of this giant reed grass to be grown in Morrow and 

Umatilla Counties for providing biomass for a test burn at the Portland General Electric 

Boardman Power Plant. 

 Given the potential for greenhouse gas emissions associated with the potential 

unintended spread of Arundo donax and napier grass, EPA believes it is prudent to require the 

growth, transport, and production of renewable fuels from these two feedstocks be conducted in 

a manner that is consistent with our lifecycle analysis. As described in 80.1426(f)(14), 80.1450( 

b)(1)(viii)(A) , 80.1451(b)(T), and 80.1451(b)(U), EPA is requiring that producers of fuel 

derived from Arundo donax and napier grass must submit a Risk Mitigation Plan to ensure that 

the production of Arundo donax or napier grass will not pose a significant risk of spread beyond 

the planting area of the feedstock used for production of the renewable fuel. Prior to registration 

of the producer or importer and generation of RINs under the RFS program, the producer or 

importer must obtain approval of the Risk Mitigation Plan from EPA, after EPA has consulted

with the appropriate responsible governmental agencies, including the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, as well as State or regional regulatory authorities 

with particular knowledge or authority to control potentially invasive species. Alternately, the 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 17 of 107

producer or importer may submit information and data showing that no conservation plan is 

needed because under the circumstances present Arundo donax or napier grass do not pose a 

significant risk of spread beyond the planting area of the feedstock used for production of the 

renewable fuel. EPA, again after consultation with the appropriate governmental agencies listed 

above, must, if appropriate, make this determination prior to registration of the renewable fuel 

producer.

Risk Mitigation Plans should incorporate approaches that are already recognized as 

highly effective. One highly effective approach to risk mitigation is Hazard Analysis Critical 

Control Point or HACCP.

19

 HACCP examines each phase of an invasive species pathway to 

identify risk reduction steps. Applied within a coordinated HACCP strategy or plan, these 

control and evaluation measures reinforce each other. To the extent appropriate, HACCP should 

be incorporated into a Risk Mitigation Plan. Also as part of the Risk Mitigation/Biosecurity 

Plan, the producer must demonstrate how the use of best management practices (BMPs), similar 

to the ones developed by the Invasive Species Advisory Council20 and USDA for miscanthus21

and Arundo donax,22 will be used by the feedstock grower and how such practices will minimize 

the potential spread of the renewable fuel feedstock. BMPs include the development of 

mitigation strategies and plans to minimize escape and other risks (e.g., minimize soil 

disturbance), incorporate desirable traits (e.g., sterility or reduced seed production), develop and 

put in place dispersal mitigation protocols prior to cultivation of biofuel plants in each region or 

ecosystem, develop multiple year eradication protocols for rapid removal of biofuel crops if they

disperse beyond desired crop rotation period, and develop plans for early detection and rapid 

 

19 See http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/HACCP%20Training%20Manual.pdf 

20 See http://www.invasivespecies.gov/home_documents/BiofuelWhitePaper.pdf 

21 See http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044768.pdf

22 INSERT CITE
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 18 of 107

response (EDRR).23 EDRR efforts should also be incorporated into a Risk Mitigation Plan; such 

efforts should demonstrate that the likelihood of invasions will be halted while still localized, 

identify and employ cooperative networks, communication forums and consultation processes 

through which Federal, state, and local agencies can work with other stakeholders to reduce the 

risk of biological invasion. Plans that implement HACCP, BMP, and EDRR risk reduction 

strategies are the most protective of environmental resources; therefore, Risk Mitigation Plans 

should include HACCP, EDRR, and BMPs.

Furthermore, the Risk Mitigation Plan should include an on-going monitoring and 

reporting component. The monitoring should cover the planting locations prior to and during 

feedstock cultivation, as well as extend at least two years after the field is no longer used for 

feedstock production to ensure no remnants of Arundo donax or napier grass survive. The area 

that needs to be monitored must also be approved by EPA, in consultation with the appropriate 

responsible agencies. The area to be monitored should be sufficient to detect any potential 

spread of the feedstock, both surrounding the field of production, feedstock storage sites, along 

the transportation route and around the biofuel production facility. The renewable fuel producer 

must also submit a number of documents such as a letter documenting all of the relevant federal, 

state, regional, and local requirements related to invasive species, a copy of all state and local 

growing permits received by the feedstock producer, and a communication plan for notifying 

federal, state, and local authorities if the feedstock is detected outside planted areas. EPA retains 

the discretion to require additional information as appropriate at the time of registration, which 

may be especially appropriate when the agency considers the approval of a feedstock with risk of 

invasiveness.

 

23http://www.invasivespecies.gov/global/EDRR/EDRR_documents/Guidelines%20for%20Early%20Detection%20

&%20Rapid%20Response.pdf
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 19 of 107

B. Analysis of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Biodiesel, Renewable Diesel, 

Jet Fuel, Heating Oil, Naphtha, and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Produced 

from Camelina Oil

The following sections describe EPA’s evaluation of camelina as a biofuel feedstock 

under the RFS program. As discussed previously this analysis relies on a comparison to the 

lifecycle GHG analysis work that was done as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard Program 

(RFS2) Final Rule, published March 26, 2010 for soybean oil biofuels. 

1. Feedstock Production

Camelina sativa (camelina) is an oilseed crop within the flowering plant family

Brassicaceae that is native to Northern Europe and Central Asia. Camelina’s suitability to 

northern climates and low moisture requirements allows it to be grown in areas that are 

unsuitable for other major oilseed crops such as soybeans, sunflower, and canola/rapeseed. 

Camelina also requires the use of little to no tillage.25 Compared to many other oilseeds, 

camelina has a relatively short growing season (less than 100 days), and can be grown either as a 

spring annual or in the winter in milder climates. 26,27 Camelina can also be used to break the 

continuous planting cycle of certain grains, effectively reducing the disease, insect, and weed 

pressure in fields planted with such grains (like wheat) in the following year.28 

Although camelina has been cultivated in Europe in the past for use as food, medicine, 

 

25 Putnam, D.H., J.T. Budin, L.A. Field, and W.M. Breene. 1993. Camelina: A promising low-input oilseed. p. 314-

322. In: J. Janick and J.E. Simon (eds.), New crops. Wiley, New York

26 Moser, B.R., Vaughn, S.F. 2010. Evaluation of Alkyl Esters from Camelina Sativa Oil as Biodiesel and as Blend 

Components in Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel. Bioresource Technology. 101:646-653.

27 McVay, K.A., and P.F. Lamb. 2008. Camelina production in Montana. MSU Ext. MT200701AG (revised). 

http://msuextension.org/publica¬tions/AgandNaturalResources/MT200701AG.pdf.

28 Putnam et al., 1993
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 20 of 107

and as a source for lamp oil, commercial production using modern agricultural techniques has 

been limited.29 In addition to being used as a renewable fuel feedstock, small quantities of 

camelina (less than 5% of total U.S. camelina production) are currently used as a dietary

supplement and in the cosmetics industry. Approximately 95% of current US production of 

camelina has been used for testing purposes to evaluate its use as a feedstock to produce 

primarily jet fuel.30 The FDA has not approved camelina for food uses, although it has approved 

the inclusion of certain quantities of camelina meal in commercial feed.31 

Camelina is currently being grown on approximately 50,000 acres of land in the U.S., 

primarily in Montana, eastern Washington, and the Dakotas.32 USDA does not systematically 

collect camelina production information; therefore data on historical acreage is limited. 

However, available information indicates that camelina has been grown on trial plots in 12 U.S. 

states.33

In response to the proposed rule, two commenters were supportive of the use of 

renewable feedstocks such as camelina oil to produce biofuels for aviation. One commenter 

noted that aviation is unique in its complete dependency upon liquid fuel - today and into the 

foreseeable future. Another commenter noted that development of additional feedstocks and 

production pathways should increase supply and ultimately move us closer to the day when 

 

29

 Lafferty, Ryan M., Charlie Rife and Gus Foster. 2009. Spring camelina production guide for the Central High 

Plains. Blue Sun Biodiesel special publication. Blue Sun Agriculture Research & Development, Golden, CO. 

http://www.gobluesun.com/upload/Spring%20Cam-elina%20Production%20Guide%202009.pdf.

30 Telephone conversation with Scott Johnson, Sustainable Oils, January 11, 2011.

31 See http://agr.mt.gov/camelina/FDAletter11-09.pdf. 

32 McCormick, Margaret. “Oral Comments of Targeted Growth, Incorporated” Submitted to the EPA on June 9, 

2009.

33 See https://www.camelinacompany.com/Marketing/PressRelease.aspx?Id=25
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 21 of 107

renewable jet fuels are price-competitive with legacy fossil fuels and help cut our dependence on 

foreign oil. EPA also received comment regarding a concern that EPA did not adequately 

establish that camelina would only be grown on fallow land and therefore would not have a land 

use impact and that EPA overestimated the likely yields in growing camelina and therefore 

underestimated the land requirements. 

In terms of the comment on camelina not being grown on fallow land, for the purposes of 

analyzing the lifecycle GHG emissions of camelina, EPA has considered the likely production 

pattern for camelina grown for biofuel production. Given the information currently available, 

camelina is expected to be primarily planted in the U.S. as a rotation crop on acres that would 

otherwise remain fallow34. Because camelina has not yet been established as a commercial crop 

with significant monetary value, farmers are unlikely to dedicate acres for camelina production 

that could otherwise be used to produce other cash crops. Since camelina would therefore not be 

expected to displace another crop but rather maximize the value of the land through planting 

camelina in rotation, EPA does not believe new acres would need to be brought into agricultural 

use to increase camelina production. In addition, camelina currently has only limited high-value 

niche markets for uses other than renewable fuels. Unlike commercial crops that are tracked by 

USDA, camelina does not have a well-established, internationally traded market that would be 

significantly affected by an increase in the use of camelina to produce biofuels. For these 

reasons, which are described in more detail below, EPA has determined that production of 

camelina-based biofuels is not expected to result in significant GHG emissions related to direct 

land use change since it is expected to be grown on fallow land. Furthermore, due to the limited 

non-biofuel uses for camelina, production of camelina-based biofuels is not expected to have a 

 

34 Fallow land here refers to cropland that is periodically not cultivated. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 22 of 107

significant impact on other agricultural crop production or commodity markets (either camelina 

or other crop markets) and consequently would not result in significant GHG emissions related to 

indirect land use change. To the extent camelina-based biofuel production decreases the demand 

for alternative biofuels, some with higher GHG emissions, this biofuel could have some 

beneficial GHG impact. However, it is uncertain which mix of biofuel sources the market will 

demand so this potential GHG impact cannot be quantified.

Commenters stated that EPA failed to justify why camelina would be grown on fallow 

land and thus result in no land use change. In the proposed rule, EPA provided a detailed 

description of the economics indicating why producers are most likely to grow camelina on land 

that would otherwise remain fallow. This analysis formed the basis for why it was reasonable 

and logical for camelina to be grown on acres that would otherwise remain fallow. Comments 

also indicated that EPA’s economic basis for assuming camelina would most likely be grown on 

fallow land was inadequate, especially if production of camelina was scaled up. However, the 

comment did not indicate any specific point of error in our economically based analysis. As we 

described in the proposed rule and discuss below, camelina is currently not a commercially 

raised crop in the United States, therefore the returns on camelina are expected to be low 

compared to wheat and other crops with established, commercially traded markets.35 Therefore, 

EPA expects that initial production of camelina for biofuel production will be on land with the 

lowest opportunity cost. Based on this logic, EPA believes camelina will be grown as a rotation 

crop, as discussed below, on dryland wheat acres replacing a period that the land would 

otherwise be left fallow. 

In the semi-arid regions of the Northern Great Plains, dryland wheat farmers currently

 

35 See Shonnard, D. R., Williams, L., & Kalnes, T. N. 2010. Camelina-Derived Jet Fuel and Diesel: 

Sustainable Advanced Biodiesel. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 382-392.
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 23 of 107

leave acres fallow once every three to four years to allow additional moisture and nutrients to 

accumulate (see Figure 1). Recent research indicates that introducing cool season oilseed crops 

such as camelina can provide benefits by reducing soil erosion, increasing soil organic matter, 

and disrupting pest cycles. Although long-term data on the effects of replacing wheat/fallow 

growing patterns with wheat/oilseed rotations is limited, there is some data that growing oilseeds 

in drier semi-arid regions year after year can lead to reduced wheat yields.36 However, the 

diversification and intensification of wheat-fallow cropping systems can improve the long term 

economic productivity of wheat acres by increasing soil nitrogen and soil organic carbon pools37. 

In addition, selective breeding is expected to reduce the potential negative impacts on wheat 

yields.38 Additional research in this area is needed and if significant negative impacts on crop 

rotations are determined from camelina grown on fallow acres EPA would take that into account 

in future analysis. 

Figure 1: Examples of Traditional Wheat and Camelina/Wheat Rotations

Example 1: Traditional Winter Wheat/Spring Wheat/Fallow Rotation

Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Year 0 Winter 

Wheat 

Planting

Year 1 Winter 

 

36 Personal communication with Andrew Lenssen, Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, April 17, 2012.

See also http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2010/100413.htm. 

37 See Sainju, U.M., T. Caesar-Tonthat, A.W. Lenssen, R.G. Evans, and R. Kohlberg. 2007. Long-term tillage and 

cropping sequence effects on dryland residue and soil carbon fractions. Soil Science Society of America Journal 71: 

1730-1739. 

38 See Shonnard et al., 2010; Lafferty et al., 2009
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 24 of 107

Wheat 

Harvest

Year 2 Spring 

Wheat 

Planting

Spring 

Wheat 

Harvest

Year 3 Winter 

Wheat 

Planting

Example 2: Winter Wheat/Camelina/Spring Wheat Rotation

Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Year 0 Winter 

Wheat 

Planting

Year 1 Winter 

Wheat 

Harvest

Year 2 Camelina 

Planting

Camelina 

Harvest

Year 3 Spring 

Wheat 

Planting

Spring 

Wheat 

Harvest

Winter 

Wheat 

Planting

Shaded cells indicate fallow months Hatched line cells indicate growing months

As pointed out by commenters, in the future camelina production could expand beyond 

what is currently assumed in this analysis. However, camelina would most likely not be able to 

compete with other uses of land until it becomes a commercial crop with a well-established 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 25 of 107

market value. EPA once again reiterates that we will continue to monitor the growing patterns 

associated with camelina to determine whether actual production is consistent with the 

assumptions used in this analysis. Consistent with EPA’s approach to all RFS2 feedstock 

pathway analyses, we will periodically reevaluate whether our assessment of GHG impacts will 

need to be updated in the future based on the potential for significant changes in our analyses. 

a. Land Availability

USDA estimates that there are approximately 60 million acres of wheat in the U.S.39 

USDA and wheat state cooperative extension reports through 2008 indicate that 83% of US 

wheat production is under non-irrigated, dryland conditions. Of the approximately 50 million 

non-irrigated acres, at least 45% are estimated to follow a wheat/fallow rotation. Thus, 

approximately 22 million acres are potentially suitable for camelina production. However, 

according to industry projections, only about 9 million of these wheat/fallow acres have the 

appropriate climate, soil profile, and market access for camelina production.40 Therefore, our 

analysis uses the estimate that only 9 million wheat/fallow acres are available for camelina 

production. 

One commenter stated that EPA assumed more than 8 million acres would be used to 

produce camelina, even though a recent paper stated that only 5 million acres would have the 

potential to grow camelina in a sustainable manner in a way that would not impact the food 

supply. This commenter misinterpreted EPA’s assumptions. EPA’s assessment is based on a 

three year rotation cycle in which only one third of the 9 million available acres would be fallow 

in any given year. In other words, EPA assumed only 3 million acres would be planted with 

 

39 2009 USDA Baseline. See http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/oce091/

40 Johnson, S. and McCormick, M., Camelina: an Annual Cover Crop Under 40 CFR Part 80 Subpart M,

Memorandum, dated November 5, 2010
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 26 of 107

camelina in any given year. This number is less than the 5 million acres the Shonnard et. al. 

paper states would be available annually for camelina planting. 

b. Projected Volumes

Based on these projections of land availability, EPA estimates that at current yields 

(approximately 800 pounds per acre), approximately 100 million gallons (MG) of camelinabased renewable fuels could be produced with camelina grown in rotation with existing crop 

acres without having direct land use change impacts. Also, since camelina will likely be grown 

on fallow land and thus not displace any other crop and since camelina currently does not have 

other significant markets, expanding production and use of camelina for biofuel purposes is not 

likely to have other agricultural market impacts and therefore, would not result in any significant 

indirect land use impacts.41 Yields of camelina are expected to approach the yields of similar 

oilseed crops over the next few years, as experience with growing camelina improves cultivation 

practices and the application of existing technologies are more widely adopted.42 Yields of 1650 

pounds per acre have been achieved on test plots, and are in line with expected yields of other 

oilseeds such as canola/rapeseed. Assuming average US yields of 1650 pounds per acre,43

approximately 200 MG of camelina-based renewable fuels could be produced on existing 

wheat/fallow acres. Finally, if investment in new seed technology allows yields to increase to 

levels assumed by Shonnard et al (3000 pounds per acre), approximately 400 MG of camelina-

 

41 Wheeler, P. and Guillen-Portal F. 2007. Camelina Production in Montana: A survey study sponsored by Targeted 

Growth, Inc. and Barkley Ag. Enterprises, LLP. 

42 See Hunter, J and G. Roth. 2010. Camelina Production and Potential in Pennsylvania, Penn State University 

Agronomy Facts 72. See http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/freepubs/pdfs/uc212.pdf.

43

 Ehrensing, D.T. and S.O. Guy. 2008. Oilseed Crops--Camelina. Oregon State Univ. Ext. Serv. EM8953-E. See 

http://extension.oregonstate.edu/ catalog/pdf/em/em8953-e.pdf; McVay & Lamb, 2008, 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 27 of 107

based renewable fuels could be produced on existing acres.44 Depending on future crop yields, 

we project that roughly 100 MG to 400 MG of camelina-based biofuels could be produced on 

currently fallow land with no impacts on land use45. 

We also received comments that we overestimated long term camelina yields. The 

commentors stated that reaching yields of 3000 pounds per acre may be attainable, but previous 

trials do not suggest that yields could reach this level in ten years. As a point of clarification, we 

did not assume that yields would need to be 3000 pounds per acre for biodiesel produced from 

camelina oil to qualify as an advanced biofuel. In the analysis presented below, EPA assumed 

yields of camelina would be 1650 pounds per acre. Since the use of camelina as a biofuel 

feedstock in the U.S. is in its infancy, it is reasonable to consider how yields will change over 

time. Furthermore, jet fuel contracts and the BCAP programs play a very important part in 

determining the amount of camelina planted, and therefore interest in increasing yields. As the 

commenter noted, this yield assumption is within the range of potential yields of 330-2400 

pounds per acre found in the current literature. 

c. Indirect Impacts

Although wheat can in some cases be grown in rotation with other crops such as lentils, 

flax, peas, garbanzo, and millet, cost and benefit analysis indicate that camelina is most likely to 

be planted on soil with lower moisture and nutrients where other rotation crops are not viable.46 

Because expected returns on camelina are relatively uncertain, farmers are not expected to grow 

camelina on land that would otherwise be used to grow cash crops with well established prices 

 

44 See Shonnard et al., 2010

45 This assumes no significant adverse climate impacts on world agricultural yields over the analytical timeframe. 

46 See Lafferty et al, 2009; Shonnard et al, 2010; Sustainable Oils Memo dated November 5, 2010, 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 28 of 107

and markets. Instead, farmers are most likely to grow camelina on land that would otherwise be 

left fallow for a season. The opportunity cost of growing camelina on this type of land is much 

lower. As previously discussed, this type of land represents the 9 million acres currently being 

targeted for camelina production. Current returns on camelina are relatively low ($13.24 per 

acre), given average yields of approximately 800 pounds per acre and the current contract price 

of $0.145 per pound.47 See Table 1. For comparison purposes, the USDA projections for wheat 

returns are between $133-$159 per acre between 2010 and 2020.48 Over time, advancements in 

seed technology, improvements in planting and harvesting techniques, and higher input usage 

could significantly increase future camelina yields and returns. 

Table 1: Camelina Costs and Returns

2010 Camelina49 2022 Camelina50 2030 Camelina51

Inputs Rates

Herbicides

 Glysophate (Fall) 16 oz. ( $0.39/oz) $7.00 $7.00 $7.00

 Glysophate (Spring) 16 oz. ( $0.39/oz) $7.00 $7.00 $7.00

 Post 12 oz ( $0.67/oz) $8.00 $8.00 $8.00

Seed

 Camelina seed $1.44/lb $5.76 $7.20 $7.20 

 

47 Wheeler & Guillen-Portal, 2007

48 See http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/273343/oce121_2_.pdf 

49 See Sustainable Oils Memo dated November 5, 2010, 

50Based on yields technically feasible. See McVey and Lamb, 2008; Ehrenson & Guy, 2008.

51 Adapted from Shonnard et al, 2010.
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 29 of 107

(4 lbs/acre) (5 lbs/acre) (5 lbs/acre)

Fertilizer

 Nitrogen Fertilizer $1/pd $25.00

(25 lb/acre)

$40.00

(40 lb/acre)

$75

(75 lbs/acre)

 Phosphate Fertilizer $1/pd $15.00

(15 lb/acre)

$15.00

(15 lb/acre)

$15

(15 lb/acre)

Sub-Total $67.76 $84.20 $119.20

Logistics

 Planting Trip $10.00 $10.00 $10.00

 Harvest & Hauling $25.00 $25.00 $25.00

Total Cost $102.76 $119.20 $154.20

Yields lb/acre 800 1650 3000

Price $/lb $0.145 $0.120 $0.090

Total Revenue at avg prod/pricing $116.00 $198 $270

Returns $13.24 $78.80 $115.80

While replacing the fallow period in a wheat rotation is expected to be the primary means 

by which the majority of all domestic camelina is commercially harvested in the short- to 

medium- term, in the long term camelina may expand to other regions and growing methods.52 

For example, if camelina production expanded beyond the 9 million acres assumed available 

from wheat fallow land, it could impact other crops. However, as discussed above this is not 

likely to happen in the near term due to uncertainties in camelina financial returns. Camelina 

 

52 See Sustainable Oils Memo dated November 5, 2010 for a map of the regions of the country where camelina is 

likely to be grown in wheat fallow conditions. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 30 of 107

production could also occur in areas where wheat is not commonly grown. For example, testing 

of camelina production has occurred in Florida in rotation with kanaf, peanuts, cotton, and corn. 

However, only 200 acres of camelina were harvested in 2010 in Florida. While Florida acres of 

camelina are expected to be higher in 2011, very little research has been done on growing 

camelina in Florida. For example, little is known about potential seedling disease in Florida or 

how camelina may be affected differently than in colder climates.53 Therefore, camelina grown 

outside of a wheat fallow situation was not considered as part of this analysis. 

The determination in this final rule is based on our projection that camelina is likely to be 

produced on what would otherwise be fallow land. However, the rule applies to all camelina 

regardless of where it is grown. EPA does not expect that significant camelina would be grown 

on non-fallow land, and small quantities that may be grown elsewhere and used for biofuel 

production will not significantly impact our analysis. 

Furthermore, although we expect most camelina used as a feedstock for renewable fuel 

production that would qualify in the RFS program would be grown in the U.S., today’s rule 

would apply to qualifying renewable fuel made from camelina grown in any country. For the 

same reasons that pertain to U.S. production of camelina, we expect that camelina grown in other 

countries would also be produced on land that would otherwise be fallow and would therefore 

have no significant land use change impacts. The renewable biomass provisions under the 

Energy Independence and Security Act would prohibit direct land conversion into new 

agricultural land for camelina production for biofuel internationally. Additionally, any camelina 

production on existing cropland internationally would not be expected to have land use impacts 

beyond what was considered for international soybean production (soybean oil is the expected 

 

53 Wright & Marois, 2011. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 31 of 107

major feedstock source for US biodiesel fuel production and thus the feedstock of reference for 

the camelina evaluation). Because of these factors along with the small amounts of fuel 

potentially coming from other countries, we believe that incorporating fuels produced in other 

countries will not impact our threshold analysis for camelina-based biofuels.

d. Crop Inputs

For comparison purposes, Table 2 shows the inputs required for camelina production 

compared to the FASOM agricultural input assumptions for soybeans. Since yields and input 

assumptions vary by region, a range of values for soybean production are shown in Table 2. The 

camelina input values in Table 2 represent average values, camelina input values will also vary

by region, however, less data is available comparing actual practices by region due to limited 

camelina production. More information on camelina inputs is available in materials provided in 

the docket. 

Table 2: Inputs for Camelina and Soybean Production

Regarding crop inputs per acre, it should be noted that camelina has a higher percentage 

of oil per pound of seed than soybeans. Soybeans are approximately 18% oil, therefore crushing 

one pound of soybeans yields 0.18 pounds of oil. In comparison, camelina is approximately 36% 

N2O N/A 22 kg CO2eq N/A 9 - 12 kg CO2eq

Nitrogen Fertilizer 40 lbs 7 kg CO2eq 3.5 - 8.2 lbs 1 - 3 kg CO2eq

Phosphorus Fertilizer 15 lbs 1 kg CO2eq 5.4 - 21.4 lbs 0 - 2 kg CO2eq

Potassium Fertilizer 10 lbs 0 kg CO2eq 3.1 - 24.3 lbs 0 - 2 kg CO2eq

Herbicide 2.75 lbs 3 kg CO2eq 0.0 - 1.3 lbs 0 - 2 kg CO2eq

Pesticide 0 lbs 0 kg CO2eq 0.1 - 0.8 lbs 0 - 2 kg CO2eq

Diesel 3.5 gal 5 kg CO2eq 3.8 - 8.9 gal 7 - 20 kg CO2eq

Gasoline 0 gal 0 kg CO2eq 1.6 - 3.0 gal 3 - 5 kg CO2eq

Total 39 kg CO2eq 21 - 47 kg CO2eq

(per acre) (per mmbtu fuel) (per acre) (per mmbtu fuel)

Camelina Soybeans (varies by region)

Inputs Emissions Inputs Emissions
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 32 of 107

oil, therefore crushing one pound of camelina yields 0.36 pounds of oil. The difference in oil 

yield is taken into account when calculating the emissions per mmBTU included in Table 2. As 

shown in Table 2, GHG emissions from feedstock production for camelina and soybeans are 

relatively similar when factoring in variations in oil yields per acre and fertilizer, herbicide, 

pesticide, and petroleum use. 

In summary, EPA concludes that the agricultural inputs for growing camelina are similar 

to those for growing soy beans, direct land use change impacts are expected to be negligible due 

to planting on land that would be otherwise fallow, and the limited production and use of 

camelina indicates no expected impacts on other crops and therefore no indirect land use 

impacts. 

e. Crushing and Oil Extraction

We also looked at the seed crushing and oil extraction process and compared the lifecycle 

GHG emissions from this stage for soybean oil and camelina oil. As discussed above, camelina 

seeds produce more oil per pound than soybeans. As a result, the lifecycle GHG emissions 

associated with crushing and oil extraction are lower for camelina than soybeans, per pound of 

vegetable oil produced. Table 3 summarizes data on inputs, outputs and estimated lifecycle 

GHG emissions from crushing and oil extraction. The data on soybean crushing comes from the 

RFS2 final rule, based on a process model developed by USDA-ARS.54 The data on camelina 

crushing is from Shonnard et al. (2010).

Table 3: Comparison of Camelina and Soybean Crushing and Oil Extraction

 

54 A. Pradhan, D.S. Shrestha, A. McAloon, W. Yee, M. Haas, J.A. Duffield, H. Shapouri, September 2009, “Energy 

Life-Cycle Assessment of Soybean Biodiesel”, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief 

Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, Agricultural Economic Report Number 845
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 33 of 107

Item Soybeans Camelina Units

Material Inputs

Beans or Seeds 5.38 2.90 Lbs

Energy Inputs

Electricity 374 47 Btu

Natural Gas & Steam 1,912 780 Btu

Outputs

Refined vegetable oil 1.00 1.00 Lbs

Meal 4.08 1.85 Lbs

GHG Emissions 213 64 gCO2e / lb refined oil

2. Feedstock Distribution, Fuel Distribution, and Fuel Use

For this analysis, EPA projects that the feedstock distribution emissions will be the same 

for camelina and soybean oil. To the extent that camelina contains more oil per pound of seed, 

as discussed above, the energy needed to move the camelina would be lower than soybeans per 

gallon of fuel produced. To the extent that camelina is grown on more disperse fallow land than 

soybean and would need to be transported further, the energy needed to move the camelina could 

be higher than soybean. We believe the assumption to use the same distribution impacts for 

camelina as soybean is a reasonable estimate of the GHG emissions from camelina feedstock 

distribution. In addition, the final fuel produced from camelina is also expected to be similar in 

composition to the comparable fuel produced from soybeans, therefore we are assuming GHG 

emissions from the distribution and use of fuels made from camelina will be the same as 

emissions of fuel produced from soybeans. 

3. Fuel Production

There are two main fuel production processes used to convert camelina oil into fuel. The 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 34 of 107

trans-esterification process produces biodiesel and a glycerin co-product. The hydrotreating 

process can be configured to produce renewable diesel either primarily as diesel fuel (including 

heating oil) or primarily as jet fuel. Possible additional products from hydrotreating include 

naphtha LPG, and propane. Both processes and the fuels produced are described in the 

following sections. Both processes use camelina oil as a feedstock and camelina crushing is also 

included in the analysis. 

a. Biodiesel

For this analysis, we assumed the same biodiesel production facility designs and 

conversion efficiencies as modeled for biodiesel produced from soybean oil and canola/rapeseed 

oil. Camelina oil biodiesel is produced using the same methods as soybean oil biodiesel, 

therefore plant designs are assumed to not significantly differ between fuels made from these 

feedstocks. As was the case for soybean oil biodiesel, we have not projected in our assessment of 

camelina oil biodiesel any significant improvements in plant technology. Unanticipated energy

saving improvements would further improve GHG performance of the fuel pathway.

The glycerin produced from camelina biodiesel production is chemically equivalent to 

the glycerin produced from the existing biodiesel pathways (e.g., based on soy oil) that were 

analyzed as part of the RFS2 final rule. Therefore the same co-product credit would apply to 

glycerin from camelina biodiesel as glycerin produced in the biodiesel pathways modeled for the 

RFS2 final rule. The assumption is that the GHG reductions associated with the replacement of 

residual oil with glycerin on an energy equivalent basis represents an appropriate midrange coproduct credit of biodiesel produced glycerin. 

As part of our RFS2 proposal, we assumed the glycerin would have no value and would 

effectively receive no co-product credits in the soy biodiesel pathway. We received numerous 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 35 of 107

comments, however, asserting that the glycerin would have a beneficial use and should generate 

co-product benefits. Therefore, the biodiesel glycerin co-product determination made as part of 

the RFS2 final rule took into consideration the possible range of co-product credit results. The 

actual co-product benefit will be based on what products are replaced by the glycerin and what 

new uses develop for the co-product glycerin. The total amount of glycerin produced from the 

biodiesel industry will actually be used across a number of different markets with different GHG 

impacts. This could include for example, replacing petroleum glycerin, replacing fuel products 

(residual oil, diesel fuel, natural gas, etc.), or being used in new products that don’t have a direct 

replacement, but may nevertheless have indirect effects on the extent to which existing 

competing products are used. The more immediate GHG reduction credits from glycerin coproduct use could range from fairly high reduction credits if petroleum glycerin is replaced to 

lower reduction credits if it is used in new markets that have no direct replacement product, and 

therefore no replaced emissions. 

EPA does not have sufficient information (and received no relevant comments as part of 

the RFS2 rule) on which to allocate glycerin use across the range of likely uses. Therefore, EPA 

believes that the approach used in RFS2 of picking a surrogate use for modeling purposes in the 

mid-range of likely glycerin uses, and the GHG emissions results tied to such use, is reasonable. 

The replacement of an energy equivalent amount of residual oil is a simplifying assumption 

determined by EPA to reflect the mid-range of possible glycerin uses in terms of GHG credits. 

EPA believes that it is appropriately representative of GHG reduction credit across the possible 

range without necessarily biasing the results toward high or low GHG impact. Given the 

fundamental difficulty of predicting possible glycerin uses and impacts of those uses many years 

into the future under evolving market conditions, EPA believes it is reasonable to use the more 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 36 of 107

simplified approach to calculating co-product GHG benefits associated with glycerin production

at this time. EPA will continue to evaluate the co-product credit associated with glycerine 

production in future rulemakings. 

Given the fact that GHG emissions from camelina-based biodiesel would be similar to 

the GHG emissions from soybean- based biodiesel at all stages of the lifecycle but would not 

result in land use changes as was the case for soy oil used as a feedstock, we believe biodiesel 

from camelina oil will also meet the 50% GHG emissions reduction threshold to qualify as a 

biomass based diesel and an advanced fuel. Therefore, EPA is including biodiesel produced from 

camelina oil under the same pathways for which biodiesel made from soybean oil qualifies under 

the RFS2 final rule. 

b. Renewable Diesel (Including Jet Fuel and Heating Oil), Naphtha, and LPG

The same feedstocks currently used for biodiesel production can also be used in a 

hydrotreating process to produce a slate of products, including diesel fuel, heating oil (defined as 

No. 1 or No. 2 diesel), jet fuel, naphtha, LPG, and propane. Since the term renewable diesel is 

defined to include the products diesel fuel, jet fuel and heating oil, the following discussion uses 

the term renewable diesel to also include diesel fuel, jet fuel and heating oil. The yield of 

renewable diesel is relatively insensitive to feedstock source.55 While any propane produced as 

part of the hydrotreating process will most likely be combusted within the facility for process 

energy, the other co-products that can be produced (i.e., renewable diesel, naphtha, LPG) are 

higher value products that could be used as transportation fuels or, in the case of naphtha, a 

blendstock for production of transportation fuel. The hydrotreating process maximized for 

producing a diesel fuel replacement as the primary fuel product requires more overall material 

 

55 Kalnes, T., N., McCall, M., M., Shonnard, D., R., 2010. Renewable Diesel and Jet-Fuel Production from Fats and 

Oils. Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass to Liquid Fuels and Chemicals, Chapter 18, p. 475
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 37 of 107

and energy inputs than transesterification to produce biodiesel, but it also results in a greater 

amount of other valuable co-products as listed above. The hydrotreating process can also be 

maximized for jet fuel production which requires even more process energy than the process 

optimized for producing a diesel fuel replacement, and produces a greater amount of co-products 

per barrel of feedstock, especially naphtha.

Producers of renewable diesel from camelina have expressed interest in generating RINs 

under the RFS2 program for the slate of products resulting from the hydrotreating process. Our 

lifecycle analysis accounts for the various uses of the co-products. There are two main 

approaches to accounting for the co-products produced, the allocation approach, and the 

displacement approach. In the allocation approach all the emissions from the hydrotreating 

process are allocated across all the different co-products. There are a number of ways to do this 

but since the main use of the co-products would be to generate RINs as a fuel product we 

allocate based on the energy content of the co-products produced. In this case, emissions from 

the process would be allocated equally to all the Btus produced. Therefore, on a per Btu basis all 

co-products would have the same emissions. The displacement approach would attribute all of 

the emissions of the hydrotreating process to one main product and then account for the emission 

reductions from the other co-products displacing alternative product production. For example, if 

the hydrotreating process is configured to maximize diesel fuel replacement production, all of the 

emissions from the process would be attributed to diesel fuel, but we would then assume the 

other co-products were displacing alternative products, for example, naphtha would displace 

gasoline, LPG would displace natural gas, etc. This assumes the other alternative products are 

not produced or used, so we would subtract the emissions of gasoline production and use, natural 

gas production and use, etc. This would show up as a GHG emission credit associated with the 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 38 of 107

production of diesel fuel replacement. 

To account for the case where RINs are generated for the jet fuel, naphtha and LPG in 

addition to the diesel replacement fuel produced, we would not give the diesel replacement fuel a 

displacement credit for these co-products. Instead, the lifecycle GHG emissions from the fuel 

production processes would be allocated to each of the RIN-generating products on an energy

content basis. This has the effect of tending to increase the fuel production lifecycle GHG 

emissions associated with the diesel replacement fuel because there are less co-product 

displacement credits to assign than would be the case if RINs were not generated for the coproducts.56

 On the other hand, the upstream lifecycle GHG emissions associated with producing 

and transporting the plant oil feedstocks will be distributed over a larger group of RINgenerating products. Assuming each product (except propane) produced via the camelina oil 

hydrotreating process will generate RINs results in higher lifecycle GHG emissions for diesel 

fuel replacement as compared to the case where the co-products are not used to generate RINs. 

This general principle is also true when the hydrotreating process is maximized for jet fuel 

production. As a result, the worst GHG performance (i.e., greatest lifecycle GHG emissions) for 

diesel replacement fuel and jet fuel produced from camelina oil via hydrotreating will occur 

when all of the co-products are RIN-generating (we assume propane will be used for process 

energy). Thus, if these fuels meet the 50% GHG reduction threshold for biomass based diesel or 

advanced biofuel when co-products are RIN-generating, they will also do so in the case when 

RINs are not generated for co-products. 

We have evaluated information about the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the 

 

56 For a similar discussion see page 46 of Stratton, R.W., Wong, H.M., Hileman, J.I. 2010. Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions from Alternative Jet Fuels. PARTNER Project 28 report. Version 1.1. PARTNER-COE-2010-001. June 2010, 

http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/reports/proj28/partner-proj28-2010-001.pdf
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 39 of 107

hydrotreating process which can be maximized for jet fuel or diesel replacement fuel production. 

Our evaluation considers information published in peer-reviewed journal articles and publicly

available literature (Kalnes et al, 2010, Pearlson, M., N., 2011, 57 Stratton et al., 2010, Huo et al., 

200858). Our analysis of GHG emissions from the hydrotreating process is based on the mass 

and energy balance data in Pearlson (2011) which analyzes a hydrotreating process maximized 

for diesel replacement fuel production and a hydrotreating process maximized for jet fuel

production.59 This data is summarized in Table 4. 

Table 4: Hydrotreating Processes to Convert Camelina Oil into Diesel Replacement Fuel 

and Jet Fuel60

Maximized for Diesel 

Fuel Production

Maximized for Jet Fuel 

Production

Units

(per gallon of fuel 

produced)

Inputs

Refined camelina oil 9.56 12.84 Lbs

Hydrogen 0.04 0.08 Lbs

Electricity 652 865 Btu

Natural Gas 23,247 38,519 Btu

 

57 Pearlson, M., N. 2011. A Techno-Economic and Environmental Assessment of Hydroprocessed Renewable 

Distillate Fuels. 

58 Huo, H., Wang., M., Bloyd, C., Putsche, V., 2008. Life-Cycle Assessment of Energy and Greenhouse Gas Effects of 

Soybean-Derived Biodiesel and Renewable Fuels. Argonne National Laboratory. Energy Systems Division. 

ANL/ESD/08-2. March 12, 2008

59 We have also considered data submitted by companies involved in the hydrotreating industry which is claimed 

as confidential business information (CBI). The conclusions using the CBI data are consistent with the analysis 

presented here.

60 Based on Pearlson (2011), Table 3.1 and Table 3.2
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 40 of 107

Outputs

Diesel Fuel 123,136 55,845 Btu

Jet fuel 23,197 118,669 Btu

Naphtha 3,306 17,042 Btu

LPG 3,084 15,528 Btu

Propane 7,454 9,881 Btu

Table 5 compares lifecycle GHG emissions from oil extraction and fuel production for 

soybean oil biodiesel and for camelina-based diesel and jet fuel. The lifecycle GHG estimates 

for camelina oil diesel and jet fuel are based on the input/output data summarized in Table 3 (for 

oil extraction) and Table 4 (for fuel production). We assume that the propane co-product does 

not generate RINs; instead, it is used for process energy displacing natural gas. We also assume 

that the naphtha is used as blendstock for production of transportation fuel to generate RINs. In 

this case we assume that RINs are generated for the use of LPG in a way that meets the EISA 

definition of transportation fuel, for example it could be used in a nonroad vehicle. The lifecycle 

GHG results in Table 5 represent the worst case scenario (i.e., highest GHG emissions) because 

all of the eligible co-products are used to generate RINs. This is because, as discussed above, 

lifecycle GHG emissions per Btu of diesel or jet fuel would be lower if the naphtha or LPG is not 

used to generate RINs and is instead used for process energy displacing fossil fuel such as 

natural gas. Supporting information for the values in Table 5, including key assumptions and 

data, is provided through the docket.61 The key assumptions and data discussed in the docket 

include the emissions factors for natural gas, hydrogen and grid average electricity, and the 

energy allocation and displacement credits given to co-products. These data and assumptions are 

 

61 See for example the spreadsheet with lifecycle GHG emissions calculations titled “Final Camelina Calculations for 

Docket” with document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542-0046.
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 41 of 107

based on the approach taken in the March 2010 RFS2 rule, as explained further below.

Table 5: Fuel Production Lifecycle GHG Emissions (kgCO2e / mmBtu)62

Feedstock

Production 

Process

RINGenerating 

Products

Other Coproducts Oil Extraction Processing Total

Soybean Oil

TransEsterification Biodiesel Glycerin 

14 

 

(1)

 

13 

Camelina Oil

TransEsterification Biodiesel Glycerin 

4 

 

(1)

 

3 

Camelina Oil Hydrotreating 

Maximized for 

Diesel

Diesel Propane 

4 

 

8 

 

Jet Fuel 12 

Naphtha

LPG

Camelina Oil Hydrotreating 

Maximized for 

Jet Fuel

Diesel Fuel Propane 

4 

 

11 

 

Jet Fuel 14

Naphtha

LPG

As discussed above, for a process that produces more than one RIN-generating output 

(e.g., the hydrotreating process summarized in Table 5 which produces diesel replacement fuel, 

jet fuel, and naphtha) we allocate lifecycle GHG emissions to the RIN generating products on an 

energy equivalent basis. We then normalize the allocated lifecycle GHG emissions per mmBtu 

 

62 Lifecycle GHG emissions are normalized per mmBtu of RIN-generating fuel produced. Totals may not be the sum 

of the rows due to rounding error. Parentheses indicate negative numbers. Process emissions for biodiesel 

production are negative because they include the glycerin offset credit. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 42 of 107

of each fuel product. Therefore, each RIN-generating product from the same process will be 

assigned equal lifecycle GHG emissions per mmBtu from fuel processing. For example, based 

on the lifecycle GHG estimates in Table 5 for the hydrotreating process maximized to produce 

jet fuel, the jet fuel and the naphtha both have lifecycle GHG emissions of 14 kgCO2e/mmBtu. 

For the same reasons, the lifecycle GHG emissions from the jet fuel and naphtha will stay 

equivalent if we consider upstream GHG emissions, such as emissions associated with camelina 

cultivation and harvesting. Lifecycle GHG emissions from fuel distribution and use could be 

somewhat different for the jet fuel and naphtha, but since these stages produce a relatively small 

share of the emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle, the overall difference will be quite small. 

Given that GHG emissions from camelina oil would be similar to the GHG emissions 

from soybean oil at all stages of the lifecycle but would not result in land use change emissions 

(soy oil feedstock did have a significant land use change impact but still met a 50% GHG 

reduction threshold), and considering differences in process emissions between soybean 

biodiesel and camelina-based renewable diesel, we conclude that renewable diesel from camelina 

oil will also meet the 50% GHG emissions reduction threshold to qualify as biomass based diesel 

and advanced fuel. Although some of the potential configurations result in fuel production GHG 

emissions that are higher than fuel production GHG emissions for soybean oil biodiesel, land use 

change emissions account for approximately 80% of the soybean oil to biodiesel lifecycle GHGs. 

Since camelina is assumed not to have land use change emissions, our analysis shows that 

camelina renewable diesel will qualify for advanced renewable fuel and biomass-based diesel 

RINs even for the cases with the highest lifecycle GHGs (e.g., when all of the co-products are 

used to generate RINs.) Because the lifecycle GHG emissions for RIN-generating co-products 

are very similar, we can also conclude renewable gasoline blendstock and LPG produced from 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 43 of 107

camelina oil will also meet the 50% GHG emissions reduction threshold. If the facility does not 

actually generate RINs for one or more of these co-products, we estimate that the lifecycle GHG 

emissions related to the RIN-generating products would be lower, thus renewable diesel (which 

includes diesel fuel, jet fuel, and heating oil) from camelina would still meet the 50% emission 

reduction threshold. 

4. Summary

Current information suggests that camelina will be produced on land that would 

otherwise remain fallow. Therefore, increased production of camelina-based renewable fuel is 

not expected to result in significant land use change emissions; however, the agency will 

continue to monitor volumes and acres to verify this assumption. For the purposes of this 

analysis, EPA is projecting there will be no land use emissions associated with camelina 

production for use as a renewable fuel feedstock. 

However, while production of camelina on acres that would otherwise remain fallow is 

expected to be the primary means by which the majority of all camelina is commercially

harvested in the short- to medium- term, in the long term camelina may expand to other growing 

methods and lands if demand increases substantially beyond what EPA is currently predicting. 

While the impacts are uncertain, there are some indications demand could increase significantly. 

For example, camelina is included under USDA’s Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) 

and there is growing support for the use of camelina oil in producing drop-in alternative aviation 

fuels. EPA plans to monitor, through EMTS and in collaboration with USDA, the expansion of 

camelina production to verify whether camelina is primarily grown on existing acres once 

camelina is produced at larger-scale volumes. Similarly, we will consider market impacts if 

alternative uses for camelina expand significantly beyond what was described in the above 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 44 of 107

analysis. Just as EPA plans to periodically review and revise the methodology and assumptions 

associated with calculating the GHG emissions from all renewable fuel feedstocks, EPA expects 

to review and revise as necessary the analysis of camelina in the future. 

Taking into account the assumption of no land use change emissions when camelina is 

used to produce renewable fuel, and considering that other sources of GHG emissions related to 

camelina biodiesel or renewable diesel production have comparable GHG emissions to biodiesel 

from soybean oil, we have determined that camelina-based biodiesel and renewable diesel should 

be treated in the same manner as soy-based biodiesel and renewable diesel in qualifying as 

biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel for purposes of RIN generation, since the GHG 

emission performance of the camelina-based fuels will be at least as good and in some respects 

better than that modeled for fuels made from soybean oil. EPA found as part of the Renewable 

Fuel Standard final rulemaking that soybean biodiesel resulted in a 57% reduction in GHG 

emissions compared to the baseline petroleum diesel fuel. Furthermore, approximately 80% of 

the lifecycle impacts from soybean biodiesel were from land use change emissions which are 

assumed to be not significant for the camelina pathway considered. Thus, EPA is including 

camelina oil as a potential feedstock under the same biodiesel and renewable diesel (which 

includes diesel fuel, jet fuel, and heating oil) pathways for which soybean oil currently qualifies. 

We are also including a pathway for naphtha and LPG produced from camelina oil through 

hydrotreating. This is based on the fact that our analysis shows that even when all of the coproducts are used to generate RINs the lifecycle GHG emissions for RIN-generating co-products 

including diesel replacement fuel, jet fuel, naphtha and LPG produced from camelina oil will all 

meet the 50% GHG emissions reduction threshold. 

We are also clarifying that two existing pathways for RIN generation in the RFS 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 45 of 107

regulations that list "renewable diesel" as a fuel product produced through a hydrotreating 

process include jet fuel. This applies to two pathways in Table 1 to §80.1426 of the RFS 

regulations which both list renewable diesel made from soy bean oil, oil from annual covercrops, 

algal oil, biogenic waste oils/fats/greases, or non-food grade corn oil using hydrotreating as a 

process. If parties produce jet fuel from the hydrotreating process and co-process renewable 

biomass and petroleum they can generate advanced biofuel RINs (D code 5) for the jet fuel 

produced. If they do not co-process renewable biomass and petroleum they can generate 

biomass-based diesel RINs (D code 4) for the jet fuel produced. 

§ 80.1401 of the RFS regulations currently defines non-ester renewable diesel as a fuel 

that is not a mono-alkyl ester and which can be used in an engine designed to operate on 

conventional diesel fuel or be heating oil or jet fuel. The reference to jet fuel in this definition 

was added by direct final rule dated May 10, 2010. Table 1 to §80.1426 identifies approved fuel 

pathways by fuel type, feedstock source and fuel production processes. The table, which was 

largely adopted as part of the March 26, 2010 RFS2 final rule, identifies jet fuel and renewable 

diesel as separate fuel types. Accordingly, in light of the revised definition of renewable diesel 

enacted after the RFS2 rule, there is ambiguity regarding the extent to which references in Table 

1 to “renewable diesel” include jet fuel.

The original lifecycle analysis for the renewable diesel from hydrotreating pathways 

listed in Table 1 to §80.1426 was not based on producing jet fuel but rather other transportation 

diesel fuel products, namely a diesel fuel replacement. As discussed above, the hydrotreating 

process can produce a mix of products including jet fuel, diesel, naphtha, LPG and propane. 

Also, as discussed, there are differences in the process configured for maximum jet fuel 

production vs. the process maximized for diesel fuel production and the lifecycle results vary 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 46 of 107

depending on what approach is used to consider co-products (i.e., the allocation or displacement 

approach). 

In cases where there are no pathways for generating RINs for the co-products from the 

hydrotreating process it would be appropriate to use the displacement method for capturing the 

credits of co-products produced. This is the case for most of the original feedstocks included in 

Table 1 to §80.1426.63 As was discussed previously, if the displacement approach is used when 

jet fuel is the primary product produced it results in lower emissions than the production 

maximized for diesel fuel production. Therefore, since the hydrotreating process maximized for 

diesel fuel meets the 50% lifecycle GHG threshold for the feedstocks in question, the process 

maximized for jet fuel would also qualify. 

Thus, we are interpreting the references to “renewable diesel” in Table 1 to include jet 

fuel, consistent with our regulatory definition of “non-ester renewable diesel,” since doing so 

clarifies the existing regulations while ensuring that Table 1 to §80.1426 appropriately identifies 

fuel pathways that meet the GHG reduction thresholds associated with each pathway. 

We note that although the definition of renewable diesel includes jet fuel and heating oil, 

we have also listed in Table 1 of section 80.1426 of the RFS2 regulations jet fuel and heating oil 

as specific co-products in addition to listing renewable diesel to assure clarity. This clarification 

also pertains to all the feedstocks already included in Table 1 for renewable diesel. 

C. Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Ethanol, Diesel, Jet Fuel, Heating 

Oil, and Naphtha Produced from Energy Cane, Giant Reed, and Napier grass

For this rulemaking, EPA considered the lifecycle GHG impacts of three new types of 

 

63 The exception is renewable gasoline blendstock produced from waste categories, but these would pass the 

lifecycle thresholds regardless of the allocation approach used given their low feedstock GHG impacts. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 47 of 107

high-yielding perennial grasses similar in cellulosic composition to switchgrass and comparable 

in status as an emerging energy crop. The three grasses considered in this rulemaking are energy

cane (e.g., hybrids of Saccharum officinarum, Saccharum spontaneum, Saccharum barberi

Jeswiet, Saccharum sinense Roxb. amend. Jeswiet that have been bred to maximize their 

biomass content rather than sugar content)

64, giant reed (Arundo donax), and napier grass 

(pennisetum purpureum), also known as elephant grass. In the proposed and final RFS2 rule, 

EPA analyzed the lifecycle GHG impacts of producing and using cellulosic ethanol and 

cellulosic Fischer-Tropsch diesel from switchgrass. The midpoint of the range of switchgrass 

results showed a 110% GHG reduction (range of 102%-117%) for cellulosic ethanol 

(biochemical process), a 72% (range of -64% to -79%) reduction for cellulosic ethanol 

(thermochemical process), and a 71% (range of -62% to -77%) reduction for cellulosic diesel (FT process) compared to the petroleum baseline. In the RFS2 final rule, we indicated that some 

feedstock sources can be determined to be similar enough to those modeled that the modeled 

results could reasonably be extended to these similar feedstock types. For instance, information 

on miscanthus indicated that this perennial grass will yield more feedstock per acre than the 

modeled switchgrass feedstock without additional inputs with GHG implications (such as 

fertilizer). Therefore in the final rule EPA concluded that since biofuel made from the cellulosic 

biomass in switchgrass was found to satisfy the 60% GHG reduction threshold for cellulosic 

biofuel, biofuel produced from the cellulosic biomass in miscanthus would also comply. In the 

final rule we included cellulosic biomass from switchgrass and miscanthus as eligible feedstocks 

for the cellulosic biofuel pathways included in Table 1 to § 80.1426. 

 

64 See https://www.crops.org/publications/jpr/abstracts/2/3/211?access=0&view=pdf and 

http://www.cpact.embrapa.br/eventos/2010/simposio_agroenergia/palestras/10_terca/Tarde/USA/4%20%20%208-

10-2010%20Cold%20Tolerance.pdf
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 48 of 107

We did not include other perennial grasses such as energy cane, giant reed, or napier

grass as feedstocks for the cellulosic biofuel pathways in Table 1 at that time, since we did not 

have sufficient time to adequately consider them. Based in part on additional information 

received through the petition process for EPA approval of energy cane, giant reed, and napier

grass pathways, EPA has evaluated these feedstocks and is now including these three feedstocks 

in Table 1 to § 80.1426 as approved pathways for cellulosic biofuel pathways.

As described in detail in the following sections of this preamble, because of the similarity

of these feedstocks to switchgrass and miscanthus, EPA believes that new agricultural sector 

modeling is not needed to analyze them. We have instead relied upon the switchgrass analysis to 

assess the relative GHG impacts of biofuel produced from energy cane, giant reed, and napier

grass. As with the switchgrass analysis, we have attributed all land use impacts and resource 

inputs from use of these feedstocks to the portion of the fuel produced that is derived from the 

cellulosic components of the feedstocks. Based on this analysis and currently available 

information, we conclude that biofuel (ethanol, cellulosic diesel, jet fuel, heating oil and 

naphtha) produced from the cellulosic biomass of energy cane, giant reed, or napier grass has 

similar lifecycle GHG impacts to switchgrass biofuel and meets the 60% GHG reduction 

threshold required for cellulosic biofuel. 

1. Feedstock Production and Distribution

For the purposes of this rulemaking, energy cane refers to varieties of perennial grasses in 

the Saccharum genus which are intentionally bred for high cellulosic biomass productivity but 

have characteristically low sugar content making them less suitable as a primary source of sugar 

as compared to other varieties of grasses commonly known as “sugarcane” in the Saccharum

genus. Energy cane varieties developed to date have low tolerance for cold temperatures but 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 49 of 107

grow well in warm, humid climates. Energy cane originated from efforts to improve disease 

resistance and hardiness of commercial sugarcane by crossbreeding commercial and wild 

sugarcane strains. Certain higher fiber, lower sugar varieties that resulted were not suitable for 

commercial sugar production, and are now being developed as a high-biomass energy crop. 

There is currently no commercial production of energy cane. Current plantings are mainly 

limited to research field trials and small demonstrations for bioenergy purposes. However, based 

in part on discussions with industry, EPA anticipates continued development of energy cane 

particularly in the south-central and southeastern United States due to its high yields in these 

regions.

Giant reed refers to the perennial grass Arundo donax of the Poaceae family. Giant reed 

thrives in subtropical and warm-temperate areas and is grown throughout Asia, southern Europe, 

Africa, the Middle East, and warmer U.S. states for multiple uses such as paper and pulp, 

musical instruments, rayon, particle boards, erosion control, and ornamental purposes.65,66 Based 

in part on discussions with industry, EPA anticipates continued development of giant reed as an 

energy crop particularly in the Mediterranean region and warmer U.S. states. 

Napier grass is a tall bunch-type grass that has traditionally been grown as a highyielding forage crop across the wet tropics. There is a considerable body of agronomic research 

on the production of napier grass as a forage crop. More recently, researchers have investigated 

ways to maximize traits desirable in bioenergy crops. Practices have been developed by USDA 

and other researchers to lower fertilization rates and increase biomass production. Based in part 

on discussions with industry, EPA anticipates continued development of napier grass as an 

 

65See http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html

66 See Lewandowski, I., Scurlock, J.M.O., Lindvall, E., Christou, M. (2003). The development and current status of 

perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy 25, 335-361.
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 50 of 107

energy crop particularly in Gulf Coast Region of the United States (more specifically the 

growing region includes Florida and southern portions of Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama 

and Mississippi).67

a. Crop Yields

For the purposes of analyzing the GHG emissions from energy cane, giant reed, and 

napier grass production, EPA examined crop yields and production inputs in relation to 

switchgrass to assess the relative GHG impacts. Current national yields for switchgrass are 

approximately 4.5 to 5 dry tons per acre. Average energy cane yields exceed switchgrass yields 

in both unfertilized and fertilized trails conducted in the southern United States. Unfertilized 

yields are around 7.3 dry tons per acre while fertilized trials show energy cane yields range from 

approximately 11 to 20 dry tons per acre.68,69 Until recently there have been few efforts to 

improve energy cane yields, but several energy cane development programs are now underway

to further increase its biomass productivity. Giant reed field trials conducted in Alabama over a 

9-year period showed an average yield of 15 dry tons per acre with no nitrogen fertilizer applied 

after the first year.70 Fertilized field trials have shown yields around 13 to 28 dry tons per acre in 

 

67 For a map depicting the northern limit for sustained napiergrass production in the United States see Figure 1 in 

Woodard, K., R. and Sollenberger, L, E. 2008. Production of Biofuel Crops in Florida: Elephantgrass. Institute of 

Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. SS AGR 297.

68 See Bischoff, K.P., Gravois, K.A., Reagan, T.E., Hoy, J.W., Kimbeng, C.A., LaBorde, C.M., Hawkins, G.L. Plant Regis. 

2008, 2, 211-217.

69 See Hale, A.L. Sugar Bulletin, 2010, 88, 28-29

70 Huang, P., Bransby, D., and Sladden, S. (2010). Exceptionally high yields and soil carbon sequestration recorded 

for giant reed in Alabama. Poster session presented at: ASA, CSSA, and SSSA 2010 International Annual Meetings, 

Green Revolution 2.0; 2010 Oct 31–Nov 4; Long Beach, CA.
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 51 of 107

Spain, and 12 dry tons per acre in Italy (based on annual yields of 3, 14, 17, 16, and 12).71 High 

yields have been demonstrated with unimproved giant reed populations, and therefore there is 

potential for increased biomass productivity through improved growing methods and breeding 

efforts.72 Napier grass field trials have produced dry biomass yields exceeding 20 tons per acre 

per year in north-central Florida. Using currently available technology, average yields for fullseason napier grass should range from 14 to 18 tons per acre with future improvements expected. 

Yield depends greatly on the type of cultivar and the amount and distribution of rainfall and 

fertilization rates. There is potential for increased biomass productivity through improved

growing methods and breeding efforts.73 In general, the yields for all three of the energy grasses 

considered here will have higher yields than switchgrass, so from a crop yield perspective, the 

switchgrass analysis would be a conservative estimate when comparing against the energy cane, 

napier grass, and giant reed pathways. 

Furthermore, EPA’s analysis of switchgrass for the RFS2 rulemaking assumed a 2% 

annual increase in yield that would result in an average national yield of 6.6 dry tons per acre in 

2022. EPA anticipates a similar yield improvement for energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass 

due to their similarity as perennial grasses and their comparable status as energy crops in their 

early stages of development. Given this, our analysis assumes an average energy cane yield of 19 

dry tons per acre in the southern United States by 2022; an average giant reed yield of 

approximately 18 dry tons per acre by 2022; and an average napier grass yield of approximately

 

71 Mantineo, M., D’Agnosta, G.M., Copani, V., Patanè, C., and Cosentino, S.L. (2009). Biomass yield and energy 

balance of three perennial crops for energy use in the semi-arid Mediterranean environment. Field Crops Research 

114, 204-213.

72 Lewandowski et al. 2003

73 Based on discussions with industry and USDA and Woodard and Sollenberger (2008)
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 52 of 107

20 dry tons per acre by 202274. The ethanol yield for all of the grasses is approximately the same 

so the higher crop yields for energy cane, napier grass, and giant reed result directly in greater 

ethanol production compared to switchgrass per acre of production. 

Based on these yield assumptions, in areas with suitable growing conditions, energy cane 

would require approximately 26% to 47% of the land area required by switchgrass to produce the 

same amount of biomass, giant reed would require less than 40% of the land area required by 

switchgrass to produce the same amount of biomass, and napier grass would require 

approximately 33% of the land area required by switchgrass to produce the same amount of 

biomass due to their higher yields. Even without yield growth assumptions, their currently

higher crop yield rates means the land use required for these crops would be lower than for 

switchgrass. Therefore less crop area would be converted and displaced resulting in smaller 

land-use change GHG impacts than that assumed for switchgrass to produce the same amount of 

fuel. Furthermore, we believe energy cane and napier grass will have a similar impact on 

international markets as assumed for switchgrass. Like switchgrass, energy cane and napier grass 

are not expected to be traded internationally and their impacts on other crops are expected to be 

limited. Increased giant reed demand in the U.S. for biofuels is not expected to impact existing 

markets for giant reed, which are relatively small niche markets (e.g., musical instrument reeds). 

b. Land Use

In EPA’s RFS2 analysis, switchgrass plantings displaced primarily soybeans and wheat, 

and to a lesser extent hay, rice, sorghum, and cotton. Energy cane and napier grass, with 

production focused in the southern United States, are likely to be grown on land once used for 

pasture, rice, commercial sod, cotton or alfalfa, which would likely have less of an international 

 

74 These yields assume no significant adverse climate impacts on world agricultural yields over the analytical 

timeframe. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 53 of 107

indirect impact than switchgrass because some of those commodities are not as widely traded as 

soybeans or wheat. Given that energy cane and napier grass will likely displace the least 

productive land first, EPA concludes that the land use GHG impact for energy cane and napier

grass per gallon should be no greater and likely less than estimated for switchgrass. Given that 

giant reed is in early stages of development as an energy crop, there is limited information on 

where it will be grown and what crops it will displace. We expect giant reed will displace the 

least productive land first and would likely have a similar or smaller indirect impact associated 

with crop displacement than what we assumed for switchgrass. 

Considering the total land potentially impacted by all the new feedstocks included in this 

rulemaking would not impact these conclusions (including the camelina discussed in the 

previous section and the three energy grasses considered here). As discussed previously, the 

camelina is expected to be grown on fallow land in the Northwest, while energy grasses are 

expected to be grown mainly in the south on existing cropland or pastureland. In the switchgrass 

ethanol scenario done for the Renewable Fuel Standard final rulemaking, total cropland acres 

increases by 4.2 million acres, including an increase of 12.5 million acres of switchgrass, a 

decrease of 4.3 million acres of soybeans, a 1.4 million acre decrease of wheat acres, a decrease 

of 1 million acres of hay, as well as decreases in a variety of other crops. Given the higher yields 

of the energy grasses considered here compared to switchgrass, there would be ample land 

available for production without having any adverse impacts beyond what was considered for 

switchgrass production. This analysis took into account the economic conditions such as input 

costs and commodity prices when evaluating the GHG and land use change impacts of 

switchgrass. 

One commenter stated that by assuming no land use change for giant reed, napier grass, 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 54 of 107

energy cane and other feedstocks, the Agency may have underestimated the increase in GHG 

emissions that could result from breaking new land. According to the commenter, EPA assumed 

that these feedstocks will be grown on the least productive land without citing any specific 

models or studies.

The commenter appears to have misinterpreted EPA’s analysis. EPA did not assume 

these crops would be grown on fallow acres, nor did EPA assume that switchgrass would only be 

produced on the least productive lands. EPA assumed these crops would be grown on acres 

similar to switchgrass, and therefore applied the land use change impacts of switchgrass analyzed 

in the final RFS2 rule. In the final RFS2, EPA provided detailed information on the types of 

crops (e.g., wheat) that would be displaced by dedicated switchgrass. This analysis took into 

account the economic conditions such as input costs and commodity prices when evaluating the 

GHG and land use change impacts of switchgrass.75 

c. Crop Inputs and Feedstock Transport

EPA also assessed the GHG impacts associated with planting, harvesting, and 

transporting energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass feedstocks in comparison to switchgrass. 

Table 6 shows the assumed 2022 commercial-scale production inputs for switchgrass (used in 

the RFS2 rulemaking analysis), average energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass production 

inputs (USDA projections and industry data) and the associated GHG emissions. 

Available data gathered by EPA suggest that energy cane requires on average less 

nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, and pesticide than switchgrass per dry ton of biomass, but 

more herbicide, lime, diesel, and electricity per unit of biomass. Giant reed may require on 

average less nitrogen and insecticide than switchgrass, but more phosphorous, potassium, 

 

75 See Final Regulatory Impact Analysis Chapter 2 , February 2010.
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 55 of 107

herbicide, diesel, and electricity per unit of biomass. Napier grass may require similar amounts 

of nitrogen fertilizer application as switchgrass, less phosphorous, potassium and insecticide than 

switchgrass, but more herbicide, lime, diesel and electricity per unit of biomass.

This assessment assumes production of all three new feedstocks uses electricity for 

irrigation given that growers will likely irrigate when possible to improve yields. Irrigation rates 

will vary depending on the timing and amount of rainfall, but for the purpose of estimating GHG 

impacts of electricity use for irrigation, we assumed a rate similar to what we assumed for other 

irrigated crops in the Southwest, South Central, and Southeast as shown in Table 6. 

Applying the GHG emission factors used in the RFS2 final rule, energy cane production 

results in slightly higher GHG emissions relative to switchgrass production (an increase of 

approximately 4 kg CO2eq/mmbtu). Giant reed production results in slightly lower GHG 

emissions relative to switchgrass production (a decrease of approximately 2 kg CO2eq/mmbtu). 

Napier grass production results in slightly higher GHG emissions relative to switchgrass 

production (an increase of approximately 6 kg CO2eq/mmbtu).
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 56 of 107

Table 6: Production Inputs and GHG Emissions for Switchgrass, Energy Cane, Giant Reed, and Napier grass (Biochemical 

Ethanol), 2022

Switchgrass Energy Cane Giant Reed Napier grass

Emission 

Factors

Inputs 

(per dry ton 

of biomass)

Emissions

(per mmBtu 

fuel)

Inputs

(per dry ton 

of biomass)

Emissions

(per mmBtu 

fuel)

Inputs

(per dry 

ton of 

biomass)

Emissions

(per mmBtu 

fuel)

Inputs

(per dry ton 

of biomass)

Emissions

(per mmBtu 

fuel)

Nitrogen Fertilizer 3,29 

kgCO2e/

ton of 

nitrogen

15.2 lbs 3.6 kgCO2e 8.4 lbs 2 kgCO2e 5 lbs 1 kgCO2e 10 lbs 2.4 kgCO2e

N2O N/A N/A 7.6 kgCO2e N/A 5.9 kgCO2e N/A 4.8 kgCO2e N/A 7.6 kgCO2e

Phosphorus Fertilizer 1,12 

kgCO2e /

ton of 

phosphate

6.1 lbs 0.5 kgCO2e 3.2 lbs 0.3 kgCO2e 7.4 lbs 0.6 kgCO2e 1.1 lbs 0.1 kgCO2e

Potassium Fertilizer 743

kgCO2e /

ton of 

potassium

6.1 lbs 0.3 kgCO2e 4.2 lbs 0.2 kgCO2e 7.4 lbs 0.4 kgCO2e 4.0 lbs 0.2 kgCO2e

Herbicide 23,45 

kgCO2e /

tons of 

herbicide

0.002 lbs 0.003 kgCO2e 1.0 lbs 1.8 kgCO2e 0.02 lbs 0.03 kgCO2e 0.4 lbs 0.6 kgCO2e

Insecticide (average across 

regions)

27,22 

kgCO2e /

tons of 

pesticide

0.025 lbs 0.04 kgCO2e 0 lbs 0 kgCO2e 0 lbs 0 kgCO2e 0 lbs 0 kgCO2e
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 57 of 107

Lime 408 

kgCO2e /

ton of lime

0 lbs 0 kgCO2e 104.7 lbs 3.1 kgCO2e 0 lbs 0 kgCO2e 100 lbs 2.9 kgCO2e

Diesel 97

kgCO2e /

mmBtu 

diesel

0.4 gal 0.8 kgCO2e 1.3 gal 2.4 kgCO2e 1.4 gal 2.5 kgCO2e 1.3 gal 2.2 kgCO2e

Electricity (irrigation) 220

kgCO2e /

mmBtu

0 kWh 0 kgCO2e 14.7 kWh 1.6 kgCO2e 10 kWh 1 kgCO2e 25 kWh 2.7 kgCO2e

Total Emissions

13

kgCO2e 

/

mmBtu

17

kgCO2e 

/

mmBtu

11

kgCO2e 

/

mmBtu

19

kgCO2e 

/

mmBtu

Assumes 2022 switchgrass yield of 6.59 dry tons/acre and 92.3 gal ethanol/dry ton, 2022 energy cane yield of 19.1 dry tons/acre and 92 gal ethanol/dry ton, 2022 

giant reed yield of 18 dry tons/acre and 92.3 gal ethanol/dry ton, and 2022 napier grass yield of 20 dry tons/acre and 92.3 gal ethanol/dry ton. More detail on 

calculations and assumptions is included in materials to the docket. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 58 of 107

GHG emissions associated with distributing energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass 

feedstocks are expected to be similar to EPA’s estimates for switchgrass feedstock because they

are all herbaceous agricultural crops requiring similar transport, loading, unloading, and storage 

regimes. Our analysis therefore assumes the same GHG impact for feedstock distribution as we 

assumed for switchgrass, although distributing energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass 

feedstocks could be less GHG intensive because higher yields could translate to shorter overall 

hauling distances to storage or biofuel production facilities per gallon or Btu of final fuel 

produced. 

2. Fuel Production, Distribution, and Use

Energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass are suitable for the same conversion processes 

as other cellulosic feedstocks, such as switchgrass and corn stover. Currently available 

information on energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass composition shows that their 

hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin content are comparable to other crops that qualify under the 

RFS regulations as feedstocks for the production of cellulosic biofuels. Based on this similar 

composition as well as conversion yield data provided by industry, we applied the same 

production processes that were modeled for switchgrass in the final RFS2 rule (biochemical 

ethanol, thermochemical ethanol, and Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) diesel76) to energy cane, giant reed, 

and napier grass. We assumed the GHG emissions associated with producing biofuels from 

energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass are similar to what we estimated for switchgrass and 

other cellulosic feedstocks. EPA also assumes that the distribution and use of biofuel made from 

energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass will not differ significantly from similar biofuel 

produced from other cellulosic sources. As was done for the switchgrass case, this analysis 

 

76 The F-T diesel process modeled applies to cellulosic diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, and naphtha.
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 59 of 107

assumes energy grasses grown in the United States for production purposes. If crops were grown 

internationally, used for biofuel production, and the fuel was shipped to the U.S., shipping the 

finished fuel to the U.S. could increase transport emissions. However, based on analysis of the 

increased transport emissions associated with sugarcane ethanol distribution to the U.S.

considered for the 2010 final rule, this would at most add 1-2% to the overall lifecycle GHG 

impacts of the energy grasses. 

3. Summary

Based on our comparison of switchgrass and the three feedstocks considered here, EPA 

believes that cellulosic biofuel produced from the cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin portions of 

energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass has similar or better lifecycle GHG impacts than 

biofuel produced from the cellulosic biomass from switchgrass. Our analysis suggests that the 

three feedstocks considered have GHG impacts associated with growing and harvesting the 

feedstock that are similar to switchgrass. Emissions from growing and harvesting energy cane 

are approximately 4 kg CO2eq/mmBtu higher than switchgrass, emissions from growing and

harvesting giant reed are approximately 2 kg CO2eq/mmBtu lower than switchgrass, and 

emissions from growing and harvesting napier grass are approximately 6 kg CO2eq/mmBtu 

higher than switchgrass. These are small changes in the overall lifecycle, representing at most a 

6% change in the energy grass lifecycle impacts in comparison to the petroleum fuel baseline. 

Furthermore, the three feedstocks considered are expected to have similar or lower GHG 

emissions than switchgrass associated with other components of the biofuel lifecycle. 

Under a hypothetical worst case, if the calculated increases in growing and harvesting the 

new feedstocks are incorporated into the lifecycle GHG emissions calculated for switchgrass, 

and other lifecycle components are projected as having similar GHG impacts to switchgrass 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 60 of 107

(including land use change associated with switchgrass production), the overall lifecycle GHG 

reductions for biofuel produced from energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass still meet the 60% 

reduction threshold for cellulosic biofuel, the lowest being a 64% reduction (for napier grass 

diesel produced through gasification and upgrading) compared to the petroleum baseline. We 

believe these are conservative estimates, as use of energy cane, giant reed, or napier grass as a 

feedstock is expected to have smaller land-use GHG impacts than switchgrass, due to their 

higher yields. The docket for this rule provides additional detail on the analysis of energy cane, 

giant reed, and napier grass as biofuel feedstocks.

Although this analysis assumes energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass biofuels 

produced for sale and use in the United States will most likely come from domestically produced 

feedstock, we also intend for the approved pathways to cover energy cane, giant reed, and napier

grass from other countries. We do not expect incidental amounts of biofuels from feedstocks 

produced in other nations to impact our assessment that the average GHG emissions reductions 

will meet the threshold for qualifying as a cellulosic biofuel pathway. Moreover, those countries 

most likely to be exporting energy cane, giant reed, or napier grass or biofuels produced from 

these feedstocks are likely to be major producers which typically use similar cultivars and 

farming techniques. Therefore, GHG emissions from producing biofuels with energy cane, giant 

reed, or napier grass grown in other countries should be similar to the GHG emissions we 

estimated for U.S. energy cane, giant reed, or napier grass, though they could be slightly higher 

or lower. For example, the renewable biomass provisions under the Energy Independence and 

Security Act would prohibit direct conversion of previously unfarmed land in other countries 

into cropland for energy grass-based renewable fuel production. Furthermore, any energy grass 

production on existing cropland internationally would not be expected to have land use impacts 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 61 of 107

beyond what was considered for switchgrass production. Even if there were unexpected larger 

differences, EPA believes the small amounts of feedstock or fuel potentially coming from other 

countries will not impact our threshold analysis. 

Based on our assessment of switchgrass in the RFS2 final rule and this comparison of 

GHG emissions from switchgrass and energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass, we do not expect 

variations to be large enough to bring the overall GHG impact of fuel made from energy cane, 

giant reed or napier grass to come close to the 60% threshold for cellulosic biofuel. Therefore, 

EPA is including cellulosic biofuel produced from the cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin 

portions of energy cane, giant reed, and napier grass under the same pathways for which 

cellulosic biomass from switchgrass qualifies under the RFS2 final rule. 

D. Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for Certain Renewable Gasoline and 

Renewable Gasoline Blendstocks Pathways

In this rule, EPA is also adding pathways to Table 1 to § 80.1426 for the production of 

renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock using specified feedstocks, fuel 

production processes, and process energy sources. The feedstocks we considered are generally 

considered waste feedstocks such as crop residues or cellulosic components of separated yard 

waste. These feedstocks have been identified by the industry as the most likely feedstocks for 

use in making renewable gasoline or renewable gasoline blendstock in the near term due to their 

availability and low cost. Additionally, these feedstocks have already been analyzed by EPA as 

part of the RFS2 rulemaking for the production of other fuel types. Consequently, no new 

modeling is required and we rely on earlier assessments of feedstock production and distribution 

for assessing the likely lifecycle impact on renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline 

blendstock. We have also relied on the petroleum gasoline baseline assessment from the RFS2 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 62 of 107

rule for estimating the fuel distribution and use GHG emissions impacts for renewable gasoline 

and renewable gasoline blendstock. Consequently, the only new analysis required is of the 

technologies for turning the feedstock into renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline 

blendstock. 

1. Feedstock production and distribution 

EPA has evaluated renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock pathways that 

utilize cellulosic feedstocks currently included in Table 1 to § 80.1426 of the regulations. The 

following feedstocks were evaluated:

 Cellulosic biomass from crop residue, slash, pre-commercial thinnings and tree residue, 

annual cover crops;

 Cellulosic components of separated yard waste;

 Cellulosic components of separated food waste; and

 Cellulosic components of separated MSW

The FASOM and FAPRI models were used to analyze the GHG impacts of the feedstock 

production portion of a fuel’s lifecycle. In the RFS2 rulemaking, FASOM and FAPRI modeling 

was performed to analyze the emissions impact of using corn stover as a biofuel feedstock and 

this modeling was extended to some additional feedstock sources considered similar to corn 

stover. This approach was used for crop residues, slash, pre-commercial thinnings, tree residue 

and cellulosic components of separated yard, food, and MSW. These feedstocks are all excess 

materials and thus, like corn stover, were determined to have little or no land use change GHG 

impacts. Their GHG emission impacts are mainly associated with collection, transport, and 

processing into biofuel. See the RFS2 rulemaking preamble for further discussion. We used the 

results of the corn stover modeling in this analysis to estimate the upper bound of agricultural 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 63 of 107

sector impacts from the production of the various cellulosic feedstocks noted above. 

The agriculture sector modeling results for corn stover represents all of the direct and 

significant indirect emissions in the agriculture sector (feedstock production emissions) for a 

certain quantity of corn stover produced. For the RFS2 rulemaking, this was roughly 62 million 

dry tons of corn stover to produce 5.7 billion gallons of ethanol assuming biochemical 

fermentation to ethanol processing. We have calculated GHG emissions from feedstock 

production for that amount of corn stover. The GHG emissions were then divided by the total 

heating value of the fuel to get feedstock production emissions per mmBtu of fuel. In addition to 

the biochemical ethanol process, a similar analysis was completed for thermochemical ethanol 

and F-T diesel pathways as part of the RFS2 rulemaking. 

In this rulemaking we are analyzing renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline 

blendstock produced from corn stover (and, by extension, other waste feedstocks). The number 

of gallons of fuel produced from a ton of corn stover (modeled process yields) is specific to the 

process used to produce renewable fuel. EPA has adjusted the results of the earlier corn stover 

modeling to reflect the different process yields and heating value of renewable gasoline or 

renewable gasoline blendstock product. The results of this calculation are shown below in Table 

7. 

We based our process yields and heating values for renewable gasoline and renewable 

gasoline blendstock on several process technologies representative of technologies anticipated to 

be used in producing these fuels. As discussed later in this section, there are four main types of 

fuel production technologies available for producing renewable gasoline. These four processes 

can be characterized as (1) thermochemical gasification, (2) catalytic pyrolysis and upgrading to 

renewable gasoline or renewable gasoline blendstock (“catalytic pyrolysis and upgrading”), (3) 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 64 of 107

biochemical fermentation with upgrading to renewable gasoline or renewable gasoline 

blendstock via carboxylic acid (“fermentation and upgrading”), and (4) direct biochemical 

fermentation to renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock (“direct fermentation”). 

The thermochemical gasification process was modeled as part of the RFS2 final rule, included as 

producing naptha via the F-T process. Our analysis of the catalytic pyrolysis process was based 

on the modeling work completed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for this 

rule for a process to make renewable gasoline blendstock.77 The fermentation and upgrading 

process was modeled based on confidential business information (CBI) from industry for a 

unique process which uses biochemical conversion of cellulose to renewable gasoline via a 

carboxylic acid route. In addition, we have qualitatively assessed the direct fermentation to 

renewable gasoline process based on similarities to the biochemical ethanol process already 

analyzed as part of the RFS2 rulemaking. The fuel production section below provides further 

discussion on extending the GHG emissions results of the biochemical ethanol fermentation 

process to a biochemical renewable gasoline or renewable gasoline blendstock fermentation 

process. In some cases, the available data sources included process yields for renewable gasoline 

or renewable gasoline blendstock produced from wood chips rather than corn stover which was 

specifically modeled as a feedstock in the RFS2 final rule. We believe that the process yields are 

not significantly impacted by the source of cellulosic material whether the cellulosic material 

comes from residue such as corn stover or wood material such as from tree residues. We made 

the simplifying assumption that one dry ton of wood feedstock produces the same volume of 

renewable gasoline or renewable gasoline blendstock as one dry ton of corn stover. We believe 

this is reasonable considering that the RFS2 rulemaking analyses for biochemical ethanol and 

 

77 Kinchin, Christopher. Catalytic Fast Pyrolysis with Upgrading to Gasoline and Diesel Blendstocks. National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2011.
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 65 of 107

thermochemical F-T diesel processes showed limited variation in process yields between 

different feedstocks for a given process technology.78 In addition, since the renewable gasoline 

and renewable gasoline blendstock pathways include feedstocks that were already considered as 

part of the RFS2 final rule, the existing feedstock lifecycle GHG impacts for distribution of corn 

stover were also applied to this analysis.79 

Feedstock production emissions are shown in Table 7 below for corn stover. Corn stover 

feedstock production emissions are mainly a result of corn stover removal increasing the 

profitability of corn production (resulting in shifts in cropland and thus slight emission impacts) 

and also the need for additional fertilizer inputs to replace the nutrients lost when corn stover is 

removed. However, corn stover removal also has an emissions benefit as it encourages the use 

of no-till farming which results in the lowering of domestic land use change emissions. This 

change to no-till farming results in a negative value for domestic land use change emission 

impacts (see also Table 13 below). For other waste feedstocks (e.g., tree residues and cellulosic 

components of separate yard, food, and MSW), the feedstock production emissions are even 

lower than the values shown for corn stover since the use of such feedstocks does not require 

land use changes or additional agricultural inputs. Therefore, we conclude that if the use of corn 

stover as a feedstock in the production of renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock 

yields lifecycle GHG emissions results for the resulting fuel that qualify it as cellulosic biofuel 

(i.e., it has at least a 60% lifecycle GHG reduction as compared to conventional fuel), then the 

 

78 Aden, Andy. Feedstock Considerations and Impacts on Biorefining. National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL). December 2009. The report indicates that woody biomass feedstocks generally have higher yields than 

crop residues or herbaceous grasses (~6% higher yields). However the same lower yield was assumed for all as a 

conservatively low estimate. 

79 Results for feedstock distribution are aggregated along with fuel distribution and are reported in a later section, 

see conclusion section. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 66 of 107

use of other waste feedstocks with little or no land use change emissions will also result in 

renewable gasoline or renewable gasoline blendstock that qualifies as cellulosic biofuel. 

One commenter stated that the Agency assumed that using the corn stover for biofuels 

production would result in additional no-till farming without any evidence that the stover would 

actually be removed from no-tilled acres. This commenter feels that with recent increased 

profitability from corn production, farmers may actually increase tillage to reap high corn prices. 

This commenter urged the EPA to consider changes to soil carbon from the removal of corn 

stover as they may have an impact on the GHG score of this new biofuel pathway. This 

commenter further urged the Agency to not simply assume that additional no-till practices will 

be adopted with residue extraction. 

The analysis the EPA conducted to evaluate the GHG impacts associated with corn stover 

removal as part of the RFS2 final rule did not assume that the corn stover had to be removed 

from no-till corn production. The models used to evaluate the impacts of stover removal 

included the option for farmers to switch to no-till practices and therefore have the option for 

more stover removal. As the demand for stover increased in the case where stover is used for 

biofuel production, the relative costs associated with no-till factored in the impact of lost corn 

yield as well as higher yield for corn stover. The model optimized the rate of returns for the 

farmers such that no-till practices were applied until the increased returns for greater stover 

removal on no-till acres were balanced by lost profits from lower corn yields. Therefore, the 

comment that we assumed stover had to come from no-till acres or that the economics would 

drive more intensive tillage practices is not accurate, as described in more detail in the RFS2 

final rule. 

Furthermore, there is an annual soil carbon penalty applied to crops with residue removal 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 67 of 107

in our models. Thus, as one shifts from conventional corn to residue corn, an annual soil carbon 

penalty factor is applied. If residue removal is combined with switching to conservation tillage or 

no-till, then the net soil C effect would be the sum of the till change effect and the "crop change" 

effect. 

For the RFS2 rulemaking, EPA conducted an in-depth literature review of corn stover 

removal practices and consulted with numerous experts in the field. In the FRM, EPA 

recognized that sustainable stover removal practices vary significantly based on local differences 

in soil and erosion conditions, soil type, landscape (slope), tillage practices, crop rotation 

managements, and the use of cover crops. EPA, in consultation with USDA, based its impacts 

on corn stover from reduced till and no till acres based on agronomical practices, nutrient 

requirements, and erosion considerations. EPA does not believe that the commentor has provided 

new information that would substantially change our analysis of the GHG emissions associated 

with corn stover. However, EPA will continue to monitor actual practices and based on new data 

will consider reviewing and revising the methodology and assumptions associated with 

calculating the GHG emissions from all renewable fuel feedstocks. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 68 of 107

Table 7: Feedstock Production Emissions for Renewable Gasoline and Renewable Gasoline 

Blendstock Pathways Using Corn Stover

Feedstock Production 

Emission Sources

Catalytic Pyrolysis and 

Upgrading to 

Renewable Gasoline 

and Renewable 

Gasoline Blendstock (g 

CO2-eq./mmBtu)

Biochemical 

Fermentation and 

Upgrading to 

Renewable Gasoline 

and Renewable 

Gasoline Blendstock 

via Carboxylic Acid 

(g CO2-eq./mmBtu)

Direct Biochemical 

Fermentation 

Process to 

Renewable Gasoline 

and Renewable 

Gasoline Blendstock 

(g CO2-eq./mmBtu)

Domestic Livestock 7,648 6,770 ~ 9,086

Domestic Farm Inputs and 

Fertilizer N2O

1,397 1,237 ~ 1,660

Domestic Rice Methane 366 324 ~ 434

Domestic Land Use 

Change

-9,124 -8,076 ~ -10,820

International Livestock 0 0 0

International Farm Inputs 

and Fertilizer N2O

0 0 0

International Rice Methane 0 0 0

International Land Use 

Change

0 0 0

Total Feedstock 

Production Emissions:

287 254 ~ 361

Assumed yield (gal/ton of 

biomass)

64.5 75 92.3
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 69 of 107

The results in Table 7 differ for the different pathways considered because of the 

different amounts of corn stover used to produce the same amount of fuel in each case. Table 7 

only considers the feedstock production impacts associated with the renewable gasoline or 

renewable gasoline blendstocks pathways, other aspects of the lifecycle are discussed in the 

following sections. 

2. Fuel distribution

A petroleum gasoline baseline was developed as part of the RFS2 final rule which 

included estimates for fuel distribution emissions. Since renewable gasoline and renewable 

gasoline blendstocks when blended into gasoline are similar to petroleum gasoline, it is 

reasonable to assume similar fuel distribution emissions. Therefore, the existing fuel distribution 

lifecycle GHG impacts of the petroleum gasoline baseline from the RFS2 final rule were applied 

to this analysis. 

3. Use of the fuel

A petroleum gasoline baseline was developed as part of the RFS2 final rule which 

estimated the tailpipe emissions from fuel combustion. Since renewable gasoline and renewable 

gasoline blendstock are similar to petroleum gasoline in energy and hydrocarbon content, the 

non-CO2 combustion emissions calculated as part of the RFS2 final rule for petroleum gasoline 

were applied to our analysis of the renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock 

pathways. Only non-CO2 emissions were included since carbon fluxes from land use change are 

accounted for as part of the biomass feedstock production. 

4. Fuel production

In the RFS2 rulemaking, EPA analyzed several of the main cellulosic biofuel pathways: a 

biochemical fermentation process to ethanol and two thermochemical gasification processes, one 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 70 of 107

producing mixed alcohols (primarily ethanol) and the other one producing mixed hydrocarbons 

(primarily diesel fuel). These pathways all exceeded the 60% lifecycle GHG threshold 

requirements for cellulosic biofuel using the specified feedstocks. Refer to the preamble and 

regulatory impact analysis (RIA) from the final RFS2 rule for more details. From these analyses, 

it was determined that ethanol and diesel fuel produced from the specified cellulosic feedstocks 

and processes would be eligible for cellulosic and advanced biofuel RINs.

The thermochemical gasification process to diesel fuel (via F-T synthesis) also produces 

a smaller portion of renewable gasoline blendstock. In the final RFS2 rule, naphtha produced 

with specified cellulosic feedstocks by a F-T process was included as exceeding the 60% 

lifecycle GHG threshold, with an applicable D-Code of 3, in Table 1 to §80.1426. In this rule, 

we are changing the reference to F-T as the process technology to the more correct reference as 

gasification technology since F-T reactions are only part of the process technology.

Since the final RFS2 rule was released, EPA has received several petitions and inquiries 

that suggest that renewable gasoline or renewable gasoline blendstock produced using processes 

other than the F-T process could also qualify for a similar D-Code of 3.

80,

 For the reasons 

described below, we have decided to authorize the generation of RINs with a D code of 3 for 

renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock produced using specified cellulosic 

feedstocks for the processes considered here. 

Several routes have been identified as available for the production of renewable gasoline 

and renewable gasoline blendstock from renewable biomass. These include catalytic pyrolysis 

and upgrading to renewable gasoline or renewable gasoline blendstock (“catalytic pyrolysis and 

upgrading”), biochemical fermentation with upgrading to renewable gasoline or renewable 

 

80 See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/compliancehelp/rfs2-lca-pathways.htm for list of petitions 

received by EPA. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 71 of 107

gasoline blendstock via carboxylic acid (“fermentation and upgrading”), and direct biochemical 

fermentation to renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock (“direct fermentation”)

and other thermo-catalytic hydrodeoxygenation routes with upgrading such as aqueous phase 

processing.

81,82

 

Similar to how we analyzed several of the main routes for cellulosic ethanol and 

cellulosic diesel for the final RFS2 rule, we have chosen to analyze the main renewable gasoline 

and renewable gasoline blendstock pathways in order to estimate the potential GHG reduction 

profile for renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock across a range of other 

production technologies for which we are confident will have at least as great of GHG emission 

reductions as those specifically analyzed. 

a. Catalytic Pyrolysis with Upgrading to Renewable Gasoline and Renewable Gasoline 

Blendstock

The first production process we investigated for this rule is a catalytic fast pyrolysis route 

to bio-oils with upgrading to a renewable gasoline or a renewable gasoline blendstock. We 

utilized process modeling results from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 

Information provided by industry and claimed as CBI are based on similar processing methods 

and suggest similar results than those reported by NREL. Details on the NREL modeling are 

described further in a technical report available through the docket.83 Catalytic pyrolysis 

involves the rapid heating of biomass to about 500°C at slightly above atmospheric pressure. 

 

81 Regalbuto, John. “An NSF perspective on next generation hydrocarbon biorefineries,” Computers and Chemical 

Engineering 34 (2010) 1393-1396. February 2010.

82 Serrano-Ruiz, J., Dumesic, James. “Catalytic routes for the conversion of biomass into liquid hydrocarbon 

transportation fuels,” Energy Environmental Science (2011) 4, 83-99.

83 Kinchin, Christopher. Catalytic Fast Pyrolysis with Upgrading to Gasoline and Diesel Blendstocks. National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2011.
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 72 of 107

The rapid heating thermally decomposes biomass, converting it into pyrolysis vapor, which is 

condensed into a liquid bio-oil. The liquid bio-oil can then be upgraded using conventional 

hydroprocessing technology and further separated into renewable gasoline, renewable gasoline 

blendstock and renewable diesel streams (cellulosic diesel from catalytic pyrolysis is already

included as an acceptable pathway in the RFS2 program). Some industry sources also expect to 

produce smaller fractions of heating oil in addition to gasoline and diesel blendstocks. Excess 

electricity from the process is also accounted for in our modeling as a co-product credit in which 

any excess displaces U.S. average grid electricity. Excess electricity is generated from the use of 

co-product coke/char and product gases and is available because internal electricity demands are 

fully met. The estimated energy inputs and electricity credits shown in Table 8, below, utilize 

the data provided by the NREL process modeling. However, industry sources also identified 

potential areas for improvements in energy use, such as the use of biogas fired dryers instead of 

natural gas fired dryers for drying incoming wet feedstocks and increased turbine efficiencies for 

electricity production which may result in lower energy consumption than estimated by NREL 

and thus improve GHG performance compared to our estimates here. 

Table 8: 2022 Energy Use at Cellulosic Biofuel Facilities (Btu/gal)

Technology Biomass Use Natural Gas Use

Purchased 

Electricity

Sold 

Electricity

Catalytic Pyrolysis to 

Renewable Gasoline or 

Renewable Gasoline 

Blendstock 136,000 51,000 0 -2,000
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 73 of 107

The emissions from energy inputs were calculated by multiplying the amount of energy

by emission factors for fuel production and combustion, based on the same method and factors 

used in the RFS2 final rulemaking. The emission factors for the different fuel types are from 

GREET and were based on assumed carbon contents of the different process fuels. The 

emissions from producing electricity in the U.S. were also taken from GREET and represent 

average U.S. grid electricity production emissions.

The major factors influencing the emissions from the fuel production stage of the 

catalytic pyrolysis pathway are the use of natural gas (mainly due to hydrogen production for 

hydroprocessing) and the co-products available for additional heat and power generation.84 See 

Table 9 for a summary of emissions from fuel production. 

Table 9: Fuel Production Emissions for Catalytic Pyrolysis and Upgrading to Renewable 

Gasoline or Renewable Gasoline Blendstock Using Corn Stover

Lifecycle Stage Catalytic Pyrolysis to 

Renewable Gasoline or 

Renewable Gasoline 

Blendstock (g CO2-

eq./mmBtu)

On-Site & Upstream Emissions (Natural 

Gas & Biomass*) 

31,000

 

84 A steam methane reformer (SMR) is used to produce the hydrogen necessary for hydroprocessing. In the U.S. 

over 95% of hydrogen is currently produced via steam reforming (DOE, 2002 “A National Vision of America’s 

Transition to a Hydrogen Economy to 2030 and Beyond”). Other alternatives are available, such as renewable or 

nuclear resources used to extract hydrogen from water or the use of biomass to produces hydrogen. These 

alternative methods, however, are currently not as efficient or cost effective as the use of fossil fuels and therefore 

we conservatively estimate emissions from hydrogen production using the more commonly used SMR technology.
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 74 of 107

Electricity Co-Product Credit -3,000

Total Fuel Production Emissions: 28,000

*Only non-CO2 combustion emissions from biomass

b. Fermentation and Upgrading to Renewable Gasoline and Renewable Gasoline Blendstock

The second production process we investigated is a biochemical fermentation process to 

intermediate carboxylic acids with catalytic upgrading to renewable gasoline or renewable 

gasoline blendstock. This process involves the fermentation of biomass using a mixed-culture of 

microorganisms that produce a variety of carboxylic acids. If the feedstock has high lignin 

content, then the biomass is pretreated to enhance digestibility. The acids are then neutralized to 

carboxylate salts and further converted to ketones and alcohols for refining into gasoline, diesel, 

and jet fuel. 

The process requires the use of natural gas and hydrogen inputs.85 No purchased 

electricity is required as lignin is projected to be used to meet all facility demands as well as 

provide excess electricity to the grid. EPA used the estimated energy and material inputs along 

with emission factors to estimate the GHG emissions from this process. The energy inputs and 

electricity credits are shown in Table 10, below. These inputs are based on Confidential 

Business Information (CBI), rounded to the nearest 1000 units, provided by industry as part of 

the petition process for new fuel pathways. 

 

85 Hydrogen emissions are modeled as natural gas and electricity demands.
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 75 of 107

Table 10: 2022 Energy Use at Cellulosic Facility (Btu/gal)

Technology

Biomass 

Use

Natural 

Gas 

Use

Purchased 

Electricity

Sold 

Electricity

Biochemical Fermentation to Renewable 

Gasoline or Renewable Gasoline 

Blendstock via Carboxylic Acid 49,000 59,000 0 -2,000

The process also uses a small amount of buffer material as neutralizer which was not 

included in the GHG lifecycle results due to its likely negligible emissions impact. The GHG 

emissions estimates from the fuel production stage are seen in Table 11. 

Table 11: Fuel Production Emissions for Biochemical Fermentation to Renewable Gasoline 

or Renewable Gasoline Blendstock via Carboxylic Acid Using Corn Stover 

Lifecycle Stage GHG Emissions (g CO2-

eq./mmBtu)

On-Site & Upstream Emissions (Natural Gas 

& Biomass*)

33,000

Electricity Co-Product Credit -3,000

Total Fuel Production Emissions: 30,000

*Only non-CO2 combustion emissions from biomass

c. Direct Fermentation to Renewable Gasoline and Renewable Gasoline Blendstock 

The third production process we investigated involves the use of microorganisms to 

ferment sugars hydrolyzed from cellulose directly into hydrocarbons which could be either a 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 76 of 107

complete fuel as renewable gasoline or a renewable gasoline blendstock. The process is similar 

to the biochemical fermentation to ethanol pathway modeled for the final RFS2 rule with the 

major difference being the end fuel product, hydrocarbons instead of ethanol. Researchers 

believe that this new technology could achieve improvements over classical fermentation 

approaches because hydrocarbons separate spontaneously from the aqueous phase, thereby

avoiding poisoning of microbes by the accumulated products and facilitating 

separation/collection of alkanes from the reaction medium.86 In other words, some energy

savings may result because fewer separation unit operations could be required for separating the 

final product from other reactants and there may be better conversion yields as the fermentation 

microorganisms are not poisoned when interacting with accumulated products. We also expect 

that the lignin/byproduct portions of the biomass from the fermentation to hydrocarbon process 

could be converted into heat and electricity for internal demands or for export, similar to the 

biochemical fermentation to ethanol pathway. 

Therefore, we can conservatively extend our final RFS2 rule biochemical fermentation to 

ethanol process results to a similar (but likely slightly improved) process that instead produces 

hydrocarbons. Since the final RFS2 rule cellulosic ethanol GHG results were well above the 

60% GHG reduction threshold for cellulosic biofuels, if actual emissions from other necessary

changes to the direct biochemical fermentation to hydrocarbons process represent some small 

increment in GHG emissions, the pathway would still likely meet the threshold. Table 12 is our 

qualitative assessment of the potential emissions reductions from a process using biochemical 

fermentation to cellulosic hydrocarbons assuming similarities to the biochemical fermentation to 

cellulosic ethanol route from the final RFS2 rule. 

 

86 Serrano-Ruiz, J., Dumesic, James. “Catalytic routes for the conversion of biomass into liquid hydrocarbon 

transportation fuels,” Energy Environmental Science (2011) 4, 83-99.
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 77 of 107

Table 12: Fuel Production Emissions for RFS2 Cellulosic Biochemical Ethanol Compared 

to Direct Biochemical Fermentation to Renewable Gasoline or Renewable Gasoline 

Blendstock Using Corn Stover 

Lifecycle Stage RFS2 Cellulosic 

Biochemical Ethanol 

Emissions

(g CO2-eq./mmBtu)

Direct Biochemical 

Fermentation to Renewable 

Gasoline and Renewable 

Gasoline Blendstock 

Emissions (g CO2-

eq./mmBtu)

On-Site Emissions & Upstream

(biomass)

3,000 < or = 3,000

Electricity Co-Product Credit -35,000 = -35,000

Total Fuel Production Emissions87: -33,000 < or = -33,000

Table 13 below breaks down by stage the lifecycle GHG emissions for the renewable 

gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock pathways using corn stover and the 2005 petroleum 

baseline. The table demonstrates the contribution of each stage in the fuel pathway and its 

relative significance in terms of GHG emissions. These results are also presented in graphical 

form in a supplemental memorandum to the docket.88 As noted above, these analyses assume 

natural gas as the process energy when needed; using biogas as process energy would result in an 

even better lifecycle GHG impact.

 

87 Numbers do not add up due to rounding.

88 Memorandum to the Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542 “Supplemental Information for

Renewable Gasoline and Renewable Gasoline Blendstock Pathways Under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) 

Program”
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 78 of 107
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 79 of 107

Table 13: Lifecycle GHG Emissions for Renewable Gasoline and Renewable Gasoline 

Blendstock Pathways Using Corn Stover, 2022 (kg CO2-eq./mmBtu)

Fuel Type

Catalytic 

Pyrolysis and 

Upgrade to 

Renewable 

Gasoline and 

Renewable 

Gasoline 

Blendstock 

Biochemical 

Fermentation to 

Renewable 

Gasoline and 

Renewable 

Gasoline 

Blendstock via 

Carboxylic Acid 

Direct Biochemical 

Fermentation to 

Renewable Gasoline 

and Renewable 

Gasoline Blendstock 

2005 

Gasoline 

Baseline

Net Domestic 

Agriculture (w/o land 

use change) 9 8 ~ 11

Net International 

Agriculture (w/o land 

use change)

Domestic Land Use 

Change -9 -8 ~ -11

International Land 

Use Change, 

Fuel Production 28 30 < or = -33 19

Fuel and Feedstock 

Transport 2 2 ~ 2 *

Tailpipe Emissions 2 2 ~ 1 79

Total Emissions 32 34 < or = -29 98

% Change from

Baseline -67% -65% -129%
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 80 of 107

*Emissions included in fuel production stage.

d. Extension of Modeling Results to Other Production Processes Producing Renewable Gasoline 

or Renewable Gasoline Blendstock 

In the RFS2 rulemaking, we modeled the GHG emissions results from the biochemical 

fermentation process to ethanol, thermochemical gasification processes to mixed alcohols 

(primarily ethanol) and mixed hydrocarbons (primarily diesel fuel). We extended these modeled 

process results to apply when the biofuel was produced from “any” process. We determined that 

since we modeled multiple cellulosic biofuel processes and all were shown to exceed the 60% 

lifecycle GHG threshold requirements for cellulosic biofuel using the specified feedstocks its 

was reasonable to extend to other processes (e.g. additional thermo-catalytic hydrodeoxygenation 

routes with upgrading similar to pyrolysis and aqueous phase processing) that might develop as 

these would likely represent improvements over existing processes as the industry works to 

improve the economics of cellulosic biofuel production by, for example, reducing energy

consumption and improving process yields. Similarly, this rule assesses multiple processes for 

the production of renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstocks and all were shown to 

exceed the 60% lifecycle GHG threshold requirements for cellulosic biofuel using specified 

feedstocks. 

As was the case in our earlier rulemaking, a couple reasons in particular support 

extending our modeling results to other production process producing renewable gasoline or 

renewable gasoline blendstock from cellulosic feedstock. Under this rule we analyzed the core 

technologies most likely available through 2022 for production of renewable gasoline and 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 81 of 107

renewable gasoline blendstock routes from cellulosic feedstock as shown in literature. 89,90 The 

two primary routes for renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock production from 

cellulosic feedstock can be classified as either thermochemical or biological. Each of these two 

major categories has two subcategories. The processes under the thermochemical category

include:

 Pyrolysis and Upgrading– in which cellulosic biomass is decomposed with temperature 

to bio-oils and requires further catalytic processing to produce a finished fuel 

 Gasification – in which cellulosic biomass is decomposed to syngas with further catalytic 

processing of methanol to gasoline or through Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthesis to 

gasoline

The processes under the biochemical category include:

 Direct fermentation – requires the release of sugars from biomass and the use of 

“synthetic biology” in which microorganisms are altered to ferment sugars straight into 

hydrocarbons instead of alcohols

 Fermentation w/ catalytic upgrading – requires the release of sugars from biomass and 

aqueous- or liquid-phase processing of sugars or intermediate fermentation products into 

hydrocarbons using solid catalysts, 

As part of the modeling effort here, as well as for the RFS2 final rule, we have 

considered the lifecycle GHG impacts of the four possible production technologies mentioned 

above. The pyrolysis and upgrading, direct fermentation, and fermentation with catalytic 

 

89 Regalbuto, John. “An NSF perspective on next generation hydrocarbon biorefineries,” Computers and Chemical 

Engineering 34 (2010) 1393-1396. February 2010.

90 Serrano-Ruiz, J., Dumesic, James. “Catalytic routes for the conversion of biomass into liquid hydrocarbon 

transportation fuels,” Energy Environmental Science (2011) 4, 83-99.
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 82 of 107

upgrading are considered in this rule and the gasification route was already included in the RFS2 

final rule. In all cases, the processes that we have considered meet the 60% lifecycle GHG 

reduction required for cellulosic biofuels. Furthermore, we believe that the results from our 

modeling would cover all the likely variations within these potential routes for producing 

renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock which also use natural gas, biogas or 

biomass91 for process energy and that all such production variations would also meet the 60% 

lifecycle threshold.92 

The main reason for this is that we believe that our energy input assumptions are 

reasonable at this time but probably in some cases are conservatively high for commercial scale 

cellulosic facilities. The cellulosic industry is in its early stages of development and many of the 

estimates of process technology GHG impacts is based on pre-commercial scale assessments and 

demonstration programs. Commercial scale cellulosic facilities will continue to make efficiency

improvements over time to maximize their fuel products/co-products and minimize wastes. For 

cellulosic facilities, such improvements include increasing conversion yields and fully utilizing 

the biomass input for valuable products. 

An example of increasing the amount of biomass utilized is the combustion of undigested 

or unconverted biomass for heat and power. The three routes that we analyzed for the 

production of renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock in today’s rule assume an 

electricity production credit from the economically-driven use of lignin or waste byproducts; we 

 

91 Our lifecycle analysis assumes that producers would use the same type of biomass as both the feedstock and the 

process energy.

92

 One commenter wanted clarification of the term “process energy” as it applies to the production of renewable 

gasoline. The EPA did not intend for the term, “process energy”, to include other energy sources, such as electricity 

to provide power for ancillary processes, such as lights, small pumps, computers, and other small support 

equipment.
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 83 of 107

also ran a sensitivity case where no electricity credit was given. We found that all of the routes 

analyzed would still pass the GHG threshold without an electricity credit, providing confidence 

that over the range of technology options, these process technologies will surely allow the 

cellulosic biofuel produced to exceed the threshold for cellulosic biofuel GHG performance. 

Without excess electricity production the catalytic pyrolysis pathway results in a 65% lifecycle 

GHG reduction, the biochemical fermentation via carboxylic acid pathway results in a 62% 

lifecycle GHG reduction, and the direct biochemical fermentation pathway results in a 93% 

reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions compared to the petroleum fuel baseline. 

Additionally, while the final results reported in this rule include an electricity credit, this 

electricity credit is based on current technology for generating electricity; it is possible that over 

the next decade as cellulosic biofuel production matures, the efficiency with which electricity is 

generated at these facilities will also improve. Such efficiency improvements will tend to 

improve the GHG performance for cellulosic biofuel technologies in general including those 

used to produce renewable gasoline. 

Furthermore, industry has identified other areas for energy improvements which our 

current pathway analyses do not include. Therefore, the results we have come up with for the 

individual pathway types represent conservative estimates and any variations in the pathways 

considered are likely to result in greater GHG reductions than what is considered here. For 

example, the variation of the catalytic pyrolysis route considered here resulted in a 67% 

reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions compared to the petroleum baseline. However, as was 

mentioned this was based on data from our NREL modeling and industry CBI data indicated 

more efficient energy performance which, if realized, would improve GHG performance. 

Another area for improvement in this pathway could be the use of anaerobic digestion to treat 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 84 of 107

organics in waste water. If the anaerobic digestion is on-site, then enough biogas could 

potentially be produced to replace all of the fossil natural gas used as fuel and about half the 

natural gas fed for hydrogen production.93 Thus, fossil natural gas consumption could be further 

minimized under certain scenarios. We believe that as commercial scale cellulosic facilities 

develop, more of these improvements will be made to maximize the use of all the biomass and 

waste byproducts available to bring the facility closer to energy self-sufficiency. These 

improvements could help to increase the economic profitability for cellulosic facilities where 

fossil energy inputs become costly to purchase. Therefore we can extend the modeling results 

for our pyrolysis route to all variations of this production technology which use natural gas, 

biogas or biomass for production energy for producing renewable gasoline or renewable gasoline 

blendstock. 

The F-T gasification technology route considered as part of the RFS2 final rule resulted 

in an approximately 91% reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions compared to the petroleum 

baseline. This could be considered a conservatively high estimate as the process did not assume 

any excess electricity production, which as mentioned above could lead to additional GHG 

reductions. The F-T process involves gasifying biomass into syngas (mix of H2 and CO) and 

then converting the syngas through a catalytic process into a hydrocarbon mix that is further 

refined into finished product. The F-T process considered was based on producing both gasoline 

and diesel fuel so that it was not optimized for renewable gasoline production. A process for 

producing primarily renewable gasoline rather than diesel from a gasification route should not 

result in a significantly worse GHG impacts compared to the mixed fuel process analyzed. 

Furthermore, as the lifecycle GHG reduction from the F-T process considered was around 91%, 

 

93 Kinchin, Christopher. Catalytic Fast Pyrolysis with Upgrading to Gasoline and Diesel Blendstocks. National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2011.
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 85 of 107

there is considerable room for variations in this route to still meet the 60% lifecycle GHG 

reduction threshold for cellulosic fuels. Therefore, in addition to the F-T process originally 

analyzed for producing naphtha, we can extend the results based on the above analyses to include 

all variations of the gasification route which use natural gas, biogas or biomass for production 

energy for producing renewable gasoline or renewable gasoline blendstock. These variations 

include for example different catalysts and different refining processes to produce different 

mixes of final fuel product. While the current Table 1 entry in the regulations does not specify

process energy sources, we are adding these specific eligible energy sources since we have not 

analyzed other energy sources (e.g., coal) as also allowing the pathway to meet the GHG 

performance threshold. 

There is an even wider gap between the results modeled for the direct fermentation route 

and the cellulosic lifecycle GHG threshold. The variation we considered for the direct 

fermentation process resulted in an approximately 129% reduction in lifecycle GHG emissions 

compared to the petroleum baseline. This process did consider production of electricity as part 

of the process but as mentioned even if this was not the case the pathway would still easily fall 

below the 60% lifecycle threshold for cellulosic biofuels. If actual emissions from other 

necessary changes to the direct biochemical fermentation to hydrocarbons process represent 

some small increment in GHG emissions, the pathway would still likely meet the threshold. 

Therefore, we can extend the results to all variations of the direct biochemical route for 

renewable gasoline or renewable gasoline blendstock production which use natural gas, biogas or 

biomass for production energy. 

The biochemical with catalytic upgrading route that we evaluated resulted in a 65% 

reduction in GHG emissions compared to the petroleum baseline. However, this can be 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 86 of 107

considered a conservatively high estimate. For instance, the biochemical fermentation to 

gasoline via carboxylic acid route considered did not include the potential for generating steam 

from the combustion of undigested biomass and then using this steam for process energy. If this 

had been included, natural gas consumption could potentially be decreased which would lower 

the potential GHG emissions estimated from the process. Therefore, the scenario analyzed could 

be considered conservative in estimating actual natural gas usage. As was the case with the 

pyrolysis route considered, we believe that as commercial scale cellulosic facilities develop, 

improvements will be made to maximize the use of all the biomass and waste byproducts 

available to bring the facility closer to energy self-sufficiency. These improvements help to 

increase the economic profitability for cellulosic facilities where fossil energy inputs become 

costly to purchase. The processes we analyzed for this rulemaking utilized a mix of natural gas 

and biomass for process energy, with biogas replacing natural gas providing improved GHG 

performance. We have not analyzed other fuel types (e.g., coal) and are therefore not approving 

processes that utilized other fuel sources at this point. Therefore, we are extending our results to 

include all variations of the biochemical with catalytic upgrading process utilizing natural gas, 

biogas or biomass for process energy. 

While actual cellulosic facilities may show some modifications to the process scenarios 

we have already analyzed, our results give a good indication of the range of emissions we could 

expect from processes producing renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock from 

cellulosic feedstock, all of which meet the 60% cellulosic biofuel threshold (assuming they are 

utilizing natural gas, biogas or biomass for process energy). Technology changes in the future are 

likely to increase efficiency to maximize profits, while also lowering lifecycle GHG emissions. 

Therefore, we have concluded that since all of the renewable gasoline or renewable gasoline 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 87 of 107

blendstock fuel processing methods we have analyzed exceed the 60% threshold using specific

cellulosic feedstock types, we can conclude that processes producing renewable gasoline or 

renewable gasoline blendstock that fit within the categories of process analyzed here and are 

produced from the same feedstock types and using natural gas, biogas or biomass for process 

energy use will also meet the 60% GHG reduction threshold. In addition, while other 

technologies may develop, we expect that they will only become commercially competitive if 

they have better yields (more gallons per ton of feedstock) or lower production costs due to 

lower energy consumption. Both of these factors would suggest better GHG performance. This 

would certainly be the case if such processes also relied upon using biogas and/or biomass as the 

primary energy source. Therefore based on our review of the existing primary cellulosic biofuel 

production processes, likely GHG emission improvements for existing or new technologies, and 

consideration of the positive GHG emissions benefits associated with using biogas and/or 

biomass for process energy, we are approving for cellulosic RIN generation any process for 

renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock production using specified cellulosic 

biomass feedstocks as long as the process utilizes biogas and/or biomass for all process energy. 

5. Summary

Three renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock pathways were compared to 

baseline petroleum gasoline, using the same value for baseline gasoline as in the RFS2 final rule

analysis. The results of the analysis indicate that the renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline 

blendstock pathways result in a GHG emissions reduction of 65-129% or better compared to the 

gasoline fuel it would replace using corn stover as a feedstock. The renewable gasoline and 

renewable gasoline blendstock pathways which use corn stover as a feedstock all exceed the 60% 

lifecycle GHG threshold requirements for cellulosic biofuel, these pathways capture the likely 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 88 of 107

current technologies, and future technology improvements are likely to increase efficiency and 

lower GHG emissions. Therefore we have determined that all processes producing renewable 

gasoline or renewable gasoline blendstock from corn stover can qualify if they fall in the 

following process characterizations:

 Catalytic pyrolysis and upgrading utilizing natural gas, biogas, and/or biomass as the only 

process energy sources

 Gasification and upgrading utilizing natural gas, biogas, and/or biomass as the only

process energy sources

 Thermo-catalytic hydrodeoxygenation processes such as aqueous phase processing with 

upgrading sufficiently similar to pyrolysis and gasification 

 Direct fermentation utilizing natural gas, biogas, and/or biomass as the only process 

energy sources

 Fermentation and upgrading utilizing natural gas, biogas, and/or biomass as the only

process energy sources

 Any process utilizing biogas and/or biomass as the only process energy sources.

As was the case for extending corn stover results to other feedstocks in the RFS2 final 

rule, these results are also reasonably extended to feedstocks with similar or lower GHG 

emissions profiles, including the following feedstocks:

 Cellulosic biomass from crop residue, slash, pre-commercial thinnings and tree residue, 

annual cover crops;

 Cellulosic components of separated yard waste;

 Cellulosic components of separated food waste; and 

 Cellulosic components of separated MSW
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 89 of 107

For more information on the reasoning for extension to these other feedstocks refer to the 

feedstock production and distribution section or the RFS2 rulemaking (75 FR 14670). 

Based on these results, today’s rule includes pathways for the generation of cellulosic 

biofuel RINs for renewable gasoline or renewable gasoline blendstock produced by catalytic 

pyrolysis and upgrading, gasification and upgrading, other similar thermo-catalytic 

hydrodeoxygenation routes with upgrading, direct fermentation, fermentation and upgrading, all 

utilizing natural gas, biogas, and/or biomass as the only process energy sources or any process 

utilizing biogas and/or biomass as the only energy sources, and using corn stover as a feedstock 

or the feedstocks noted above. In order to qualify for RIN generation, the fuel must meet the 

other definitional criteria for renewable fuel (e.g., produced from renewable biomass, and used to 

reduce or replace petroleum-based transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel) specified in the 

Clean Air Act and the RFS regulations. 

A manufacturer of a renewable motor vehicle gasoline (including parties using a 

renewable blendstock obtained from another party), must satisfy EPA motor vehicle registration 

requirements in 40 CFR part 79 for the fuel to be used as a transportation fuel. Per 40 CFR 

79.56(e)(3)(i), a renewable motor vehicle gasoline would be in the Non-Baseline Gasoline 

category or the Atypical Gasoline category (depending on its properties) since it is not derived 

only from conventional petroleum, heavy oil deposits, coal, tar sands and/or oil sands (40 CFR 

79.56(e)(3)(i)(5)).In either case, the Tier 1 requirements at 40 CFR 79.52 (emissions 

characterization) and the Tier 2 requirements at 40 CFR 79.53 (animal exposure) are conditions 

for registration unless the manufacturer qualifies for a small business provision at 40 CFR 

79.58(d). For a non-baseline gasoline, a manufacturer under $50 million in annual revenue is 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 90 of 107

exempt from Tier 1 and Tier 2. For an atypical gasoline there is no exemption from Tier 1, but a 

manufacturer under $10 million in annual revenue is exempt from Tier 2. 

Registration for a motor vehicle gasoline at 40 CFR 79 is via EPA Form 3520-12, Fuel 

Manufacturer Notification for Motor Vehicle Fuel, available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/ffarsfrms.htm.

E. Esterification Production Process Inclusion for Specified Feedstocks Producing 

Biodiesel

The Agency is not taking final action on its proposed interpretation of the RFS regulations 

as including a direct esterification process as part of the biodiesel pathways for which only 

"trans-esterification" is specifically referenced in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426. See 77 FR 

465. We continue to evaluate the issue and anticipate issuing a final determination as part of a 

subsequent rulemaking.

II. Additional Changes to Listing of Available Pathways in Table 1 of 80.1426

We are also finalizing two changes to Table 1 to 80.1426 that were proposed on July 1, 

2011(76 FR 38844). The first change adds ID letters to pathways to facilitate references to 

specific pathways. The second change adds "rapeseed" to the existing pathway for renewable 

fuel made from canola oil. 

On September 28, 2010, EPA published a “Supplemental Determination for Renewable 

Fuels Produced Under the Final RFS2 Program from Canola Oil” (75 FR 59622). In the July 1, 

2011 NPRM (76 FR 38844) we proposed to clarify two aspects of the supplemental 

determination. First we proposed to amend the regulatory language in Table 1 to §80.1426 to 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 91 of 107

clarify that the currently-approved pathway for canola also applies more generally to rapeseed. 

While “canola” was specifically described as the feedstock evaluated in the supplemental 

determination, we had not intended the supplemental determination to cover just those varieties 

or sources of rapeseed that are identified as canola, but to all rapeseed. As described in the July

1, 2011 NPRM, we currently interpret the reference to “canola” in Table 1 to §80.1426 to 

include any rapeseed. To eliminate ambiguity caused by the current language, however, we 

proposed to replace the term “canola” in that table with the term “canola/rapeseed”. Canola is a 

type of rapeseed. While the term “canola” is often used in the American continent and in 

Australia, the term “rapeseed” is often used in Europe and other countries to describe the same 

crop. We received no adverse comments on our proposal, and are finalizing it as proposed. This 

change will enhance the clarity of the regulations regarding the feedstocks that qualify under the 

approved canola biodiesel pathway. 

Second, we wish to clarify that although the GHG emissions of producing fuels from 

canola feedstock grown in the U.S. and Canada was specifically modeled as the most likely

source of canola (or rapeseed) oil used for biodiesel produced for sale and use in the U.S., we 

also intended that the approved pathway cover canola/rapeseed oil from other countries, and we 

interpret our regulations in that manner. We expect the vast majority of biodiesel used in the 

U.S. and produced from canola/rapeseed oil will come from U.S. and Canadian crops. Incidental 

amounts from crops produced in other nations will not impact our average GHG emissions for 

two reasons. First, our analyses considered world-wide impacts and thus considered 

canola/rapeseed crop production in other countries. Second, other countries most likely to be 

exporting canola/rapeseed or biodiesel product from canola/rapeseed are likely to be major 

producers which typically use similar cultivars and farming techniques. Therefore, GHG 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 92 of 107

emissions from producing biodiesel with canola/rapeseed grown in other countries should be 

very similar to the GHG emissions we modeled for Canadian and U.S. canola, though they could 

be slightly (and insignificantly) higher or lower. At any rate, even if there were unexpected 

larger differences, EPA believes the small amounts of feedstock or fuel potentially coming from 

other countries will not impact our threshold analysis. Therefore, EPA interprets the approved 

canola pathway as covering canola/rapeseed regardless of country of origin.

We are also correcting an inadvertent omission to the proposal which incorrectly did not 

include a pathway for producing naphtha from switchgrass and miscanthus; this pathway was 

included in the original RFS2 final rule. This pathway also incorporates the additional energy

grass feedstock sources being added today, namely energy cane, giant reed and napier grass. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 

13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

"significant regulatory action.” Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 

3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any new information collection burden. The corrections, 

clarifications, and modifications to the final RFS2 regulations contained in this rule are within 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 93 of 107

the scope of the information collection requirements submitted to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for the final RFS2 regulations.

OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 80, subpart M under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control numbers 2060– 0637 and 2060-0640. The 

OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency

certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today’s rule on small entities, small entity is 

defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of this action on small entities, I certify that this 

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. The relatively minor corrections 

and modifications this rule makes to the final RFS2 regulations do not impact small entities. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 94 of 107

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 and makes relatively minor corrections and modifications to the RFS2 

regulations.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 

the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. This action only applies to gasoline, diesel, and renewable 

fuel producers, importers, distributors and marketers and makes relatively minor corrections and 

modifications to the RFS2 regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action.

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments)

This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 95 of 107

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It applies to gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuel 

producers, importers, distributors and marketers. This action makes relatively minor corrections 

and modifications to the RFS regulations, and does not impose any enforceable duties on 

communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

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

and Safety Risks

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under 

section 5–501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or 

safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. This rulemaking does not change any programmatic 

structural component of the RFS2 regulatory requirements. This rulemaking does not add any

new requirements for obligated parties under the program or mandate the use of any of the new 

pathways contained in the rule. This rulemaking only makes a determination to qualify new fuel 

pathways under the RFS2 regulations, creating further opportunity and flexibility for compliance 

with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) mandates. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 96 of 107

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 (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome 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 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 97 of 107

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). 

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Identification of Additional Qualifying Renewable 

Fuel Pathways under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program

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.
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 98 of 107

Dated: ____________________________

__________________________________

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator

Billing Code: 6550-50-P
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 99 of 107

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 80.1401 is amended by adding definitions of “Renewable Gasoline” and 

“Renewable Gasoline Blendstock” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

§80.1401 Definitions

* * * * *

Renewable gasoline means renewable fuel made from renewable biomass that is 

composed of only hydrocarbons and which meets the definition of gasoline in §80.2(c).

Renewable gasoline blendstock means a blendstock made from renewable biomass that is 

composed of only hydrocarbons and which meets the definition of gasoline blendstock in 

§80.2(s).

* * * * *

3. Section 80.1426 is amended by revising Table 1 in (f)(1) 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
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 100 of 107

Fuel type Feedstock Production process 

requirements

DCode

A Ethanol Corn starch All of the following:

Dry mill process, using 

natural gas, biomass, or 

biogas for process energy and 

at least two advanced 

technologies from Table 2 to 

this section

6

B Ethanol Corn starch All of the following:

Dry mill process, using 

natural gas, biomass, or 

biogas for process energy and 

at least one of the advanced 

technologies from Table 2 to 

this section plus drying no 

more than 65% of the 

distillers grains with solubles 

it markets annually

6

C Ethanol Corn starch All of the following:

Dry mill process, using 

natural gas, biomass, or 

biogas for process energy and 

6
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 101 of 107

drying no more than 50% of 

the distillers grains with 

solubles it markets annually

D Ethanol Corn starch Wet mill process using 

biomass or biogas for process 

energy

6

E Ethanol Starches from crop residue and 

annual covercrops

Fermentation using natural 

gas, biomass, or biogas for 

process energy

6

F Biodiesel, 

renewable 

diesel, jet fuel 

and heating 

oil

Soy bean oil;

Oil from annual covercrops;

Algal oil;

Biogenic waste oils/fats/greases;

Non-food grade corn oil

Camelina oil

One of the following:

Trans-Esterification

Esterification

Hydrotreating

Excluding processes that coprocess renewable biomass 

and petroleum

4

G Biodiesel, 

heating oil

Canola/Rapeseed oil Trans-Esterification using 

natural gas or biomass for 

process energy

4

H Biodiesel, 

renewable 

diesel, jet fuel 

and heating 

Soy bean oil;

Oil from annual covercrops;

Algal oil;

Biogenic waste oils/fats/greases;

One of the following:

Trans-Esterification

Esterification

Hydrotreating

5
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 102 of 107

oil Non-food grade corn oil

Camelina oil

Includes only processes that 

co-process renewable 

biomass and petroleum

I Naphtha, LPG Camelina oil Hydrotreating 5

J Ethanol Sugarcane Fermentation 5

K Ethanol Cellulosic Biomass from crop 

residue, slash, pre-commercial 

thinnings and tree residue, annual 

covercrops, switchgrass, 

miscanthus, napier grass, giant 

reed, and energy cane; cellulosic 

components of separated yard 

waste; cellulosic components of 

separated food waste; and 

cellulosic components of 

separated MSW

Any 3

L Cellulosic 

diesel, jet fuel 

and heating 

oil

Cellulosic Biomass from crop 

residue, slash, pre-commercial 

thinnings and tree residue, annual 

covercrops, switchgrass, 

miscanthus, napier grass, giant 

reed and energy cane; cellulosic 

components of separated yard 

Any 7
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 103 of 107

waste; cellulosic components of 

separated food waste; and 

cellulosic components of 

separated MSW

M Renewable 

gasoline and 

renewable 

gasoline 

blendstock

Cellulosic Biomass from crop 

residue, slash, pre-commercial 

thinnings, tree residue, annual 

cover crops; cellulosic 

components of separated yard 

waste; cellulosic components of 

separated food waste; and 

cellulosic components of 

separated MSW

Catalytic Pyrolysis and 

Upgrading, 

Gasification and Upgrading, 

Thermo-Catalytic 

Hydrodeoxygenation and 

Upgrading, Direct

Fermentation, 

Fermentation and Upgrading, 

all utilizing natural gas, 

biogas, and/or biomass as the 

only process energy sources 

Any process utilizing biogas 

and / or biomass as the only

process energy sources

3

N Naphtha Cellulosic biomass from 

switchgrass, miscanthus, energy

cane, giant reed and napier grass

Gasification and upgrading 3

O Butanol Corn starch Fermentation; dry mill using 

natural gas, biomass, or 

6
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 104 of 107

biogas for process energy

P Ethanol, 

renewable 

diesel, jet 

fuel, heating 

oil, and 

naphtha

The non-cellulosic portions of 

separated food waste

Any 5

Q Biogas Landfills, sewage waste treatment 

plants, manure digesters

Any 5

* * * * *

80.1426(f)(14) In order for facilities to satisfy the pathway requirements using giant reed 

(Arundo donax) or napier grass grown, the producer or importer may only generate RINs if the 

feedstock is either:

(A) Managed, transported, collected, and monitored according to a Risk 

Mitigation Plan approved by EPA under the registration procedures 

specified in 80.1450(b)(1)(viii); or,

(B) EPA has determined that there is not a significant risk of spread beyond the 

planting area of the feedstock used for production of the renewable fuel. Any 

determination that Arundo donax or napier grass does not present a 

significant risk of spread beyond the planting area must be based upon clear 

and compelling evidence, including information and supporting data. Such a 

determination must be made by EPA as specified in 80.1450(b)(1)(viii).
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 105 of 107

* * * * *

80.1450( b)(1)(viii)(A) For a producer or importer of renewable fuel made from giant reed 

(Arundo donax) or napier grass per 80.1426(f)(14)(A):

(1) A Risk Mitigation Plan (Plan) that demonstrates the production of Arundo donax or napier 

grass will not pose a significant risk of spread beyond the planting area of the feedstock used for 

production of the renewable fuel. The Plan must identify and incorporate best management 

practices (BMPs) into the production, management, transport, collection, monitoring, and 

processing of the feedstock. To the extent practicable, the Risk Mitigation Plan should utilize a 

Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) approach to examine each phase of the 

pathway to identify risk reduction steps. BMPs should include the development of mitigation 

strategies and plans to minimize escape and other risks (e.g., minimize soil disturbance), 

incorporate desirable traits (e.g., sterility or reduced seed production), develop and implement 

dispersal mitigation protocols prior to cultivation, develop multiple year eradication controls. 

Eradication controls should follow an approach of early detection and rapid response (EDRR) to 

unintended spread. EDRR efforts should demonstrate the likelihood of invasions will be halted 

while still localized, identify and employ cooperative networks, communication forums, and 

consultation processes with federal, state, and local agencies. The Risk Mitigation Plan must 

include:

(a) Monitoring and reporting for a period extending from two growing seasons prior to planting 

through crop production and extending beyond crop production for a period determined to ensure 

that the growing cycle of the feedstock species has been interrupted, post-production, or two 

years, whichever is greater. 
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 106 of 107

(b) Monitoring must include production areas and the larger area encompassing the production 

areas, extending to the distance of potential propagation of the feedstock species, or further if 

necessary. 

(c) Monitoring must reflect the risk of uncontrolled spread specific to the feedstock. 

(2) An affidavit from the producer of the feedstock, identifying all federal, state, regional, and 

local requirements related to invasive species that are applicable for the feedstock. 

(3) A copy of all state and local growing permits received by the producer of the feedstock.

(4) A communication plan for notifying federal, state, regional, and local authorities if the 

feedstock is detected outside planted area. 

(B) For a producer or importer of renewable fuel made from giant reed (Arundo donax) or 

Napier grass per 80.1426(f)(14)(B): Clear and compelling evidence, including information and 

supporting data, to support a determination by EPA that Arundo donax or napier grass does not 

present a significant risk of spread beyond the planting area of the feedstock used for production 

of the renewable fuel. Such a demonstration should include consideration of the elements of a 

Risk Mitigation Plan set forth in 80.1450(b)(1)(viii)(A), fully disclose the potential invasiveness 

of the feedstock, and explain why a Risk Mitigation Plan is not needed to make the required 

determination.

* * * * *

80.1451(b)(T) Producers or importers of renewable fuel made from Arundo donax or napier 

grass per 80.1426(f)(14), shall report the average and total size of land planted with each of these 

crops, land set aside to control the unwanted spread of these crops, prior use of the land, and a 

description and explanation of any change in land from the previous year. 

80.1451(b)(U) Any additional information the Administrator may require. 

* * * * *
*** Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Review – Revised Version – Do 

Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review. Subject to further policy review.*** 

Page 107 of 107

80.1454(b), (c)