### Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

EO12866	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review. **Interagency Comments on U.S.**  **Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft Final Rulemaking “ Regulation**  **of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways under the Renewable**  **Fuel Standard Program; Final Rule Approving Renewable Fuel Pathways for Giant Reed (Arundo Donax) and Napier Grass (Pennisetum Purpureum)**  **,” RIN 2060**  **- AR85**   Pg.5

– EPA uses the term “minimize the potential spread”. Might “prevent” be a better ter m?

- EPA does not agree with this revision. We can’t “prevent,” we can only minimize the potential.  Comment A21 sentence edits are a bit confusing. Suggest clarifying the sentence with the phrase “even without the measures that would have otherwise be i dentified in a Risk Mitigation Plan.”

- The clause cited was part of OMB’s suggested language. We suggest deleting, since we have a new sentence that elaborates on the idea that an RMP might not be needed where it is native.  Pg. 27

– Are the requirement s for 80.1450(b)(2) in the redline text new recordkeeping requirements even for when no RMP is required? Is this also required in the context of international developers? Please clarify .

- This question is unclear. 1450 (b)(2) doesn’t refer to recordkeeping. If there question is whether producers that don’t need a risk mitigation plan still need to meet the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 1451 and 1454, the answer is yes. If the question is whether the producers that don’t need a risk mitigation plan need to do the monitoring with third party

auditing, the answer is no .  Pg. 32 - EPA says “may” require the financial mechanism for producer if an RMP is required. Would a financial mechanism ever be needed if no RMP is required?

- No. EPA does not envision requiring a financial mechanism in places where no RMP is required.  Pg. 34

– Is $25,000 the current amount for daily violations?

- Revisions made

– the penalty has been increased to $37,500.  P 54, 80.1450(2) - states that USDA’s letter goes to the feedstock grower. Is that accurate? We thought the letter would go to EPA. The first sentence also states ‘bases’ when it should be ‘basis’?

- Yes, this is accurate. The renewable fuel producer is responsible for getting the letter from USDA, but they

are also responsible for including a copy of the letter as part of their registration package, so EPA will have a copy. “Bases” is the plural of “basis”. It could be either. We used “bases” because we assume USDA might have more than one thing to say

in support of its conclusions.  Regarding the cases where no risk mitigation plan would be needed, the EPA rule now provides that the information submitted to demonstrate that no risk mitigation plan is needed must result in the same on the ground e ffect that would occur if a risk mitigation plan were in place. Wouldn't the fuel producer have to come up with a mitigation plan to show that one is not needed or is it written this way for foreign growers where the plants may not be invasive? Why not jus t require one in all cases and vary what is required given the circumstances?

- EPA believes it is important to maintain flexibility to not require a risk mitigation plan, for example in areas where the plant is native. We have added language on page 27 to clarify .