*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **1** of **150** EO12866_RFS Pathways II 2060 - AR21 FRM FRN_20140630.docx **ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 80 [EPA**  **- HQ**  **- OAR** **- 2012**  **- 0401; FRL**  **- 9910**  **- 40**  **- OAR** **]**

**RIN 2060**  **- AR21**  **Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: RFS Pathways II**  **, and Technical Amendments to** 

**the RFS Standards and E15 Misfueling Mitigation Requirements**  **AGENCY** : Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). **ACTION** : Final rule . **SUMMARY:** In this final rulemaking, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) is amending three separate sets of regulations relating to fuels. In amendments to the renewable fuels standard (RFS) program regulations, EPA is clarifying the number of cellulosic biofuel renewable identificati on numbers that may be generated for fuel made with feedstocks of varying cellulosic content, is specif yi ng new and amended pathway s for the production of renewable fuels made from biogas, and is clarif yi ng or amend ing a number of RFS program regulations that define terms or address registration, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. EPA is also making various changes to the misfueling mitigation regulations for gasoline that contains greater than 10 volume percent ethanol and no more than 15 volume p ercent ethanol (E15) and to the survey

requirements associated with the ultra - low sulfur diesel program. **DATES:** This rule is effective [ INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ].*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **2** of **150 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:**  Jon Monger, Offi ce of Transportation and Air Quality , Mail Code: 1101A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 20460; telephone number: (202) 564 - 0628; fax number: (202) 564 - 1686; email address: monger.jon@epa.gov. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** : This preamble follows the following outline: I. Why

is EPA Taking This Action? II. Does this Action Apply to Me? III. Executive Summary IV . Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program Amendments A. R enewable Identification Number (RIN) Generation for Fuels Made from Feedstocks Containing Cellulosic Biomass 1. Background 2. The Cellulosic Content Threshold Approach and its Application to Cellulosic Feedstocks Currentl y Li sted in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 3. Compliance Requirement s for Producers of Cellulosic Biofuel made from Feedstocks that are not Predominantly Cellulosic 4. Testing, Registration, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Cellulosic Biofuel a. Additional Registration Requirements for Certain Producers See king to Generate Cellulosic Biofuel RINs b. Additional Registration Requirements for Renewable Fuel Produced from Energy

Cane c. Additional Registration, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements for Producers of Cellulosic Fuels Derived from the Simultaneous Conversion of Feedstocks that are Predominantl y Cellulosic and Feedstocks that are Not Predominantly Cellulosic 5 . Determining the Average Adjusted Cellulosic Content of Feedstocks Going Forward 6 . Other Comments Received a. Treatment of Cellulosic Feedstocks Currentl y Listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 b. Feedstocks with L ower Average Cellulosic Content than Feedstocks Currently L isted in Table 1 to §80.1426 B. Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analy sis and Cellulosic Determinations for Pathway s Using Biogas as a Feedstock 1. Changes Applicable to the Revised CNG/LNG P athway from Biogas 2. Determination of the Cellulosic Content of Biogenic Waste - Derived Biogas a. Landfill Biogas and MSW Digester Biogas as Cellulosic in Origin*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **3** of **150** b. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility Digester Biog as as Cellulosic c. Agricultural Digester Gas as Cellulosic d. Biogas from Waste Digesters 3. Consideration of L ifecycle GHG Emissions Associated with Biogas Pathway s a. Upstream GHG Anal y sis of Biogas as a Renewable Fuel or Fuel Feedstock b. Flaring Baseline Justification c. L ifecycle GHG Analy sis for Electricit y from Biogas 4. Alternative Biogas Options and Comments a. Alternative Baseline Approaches b. Additional Comments on L ifec ycle Anal ys is for Renewable Electricit y C. Regulatory

Amendments Related to Biogas 1. Changes Applicable to Renewable Electricit y from Biogas Sources a. Registration and RIN Generation Requirements b. Distribution and Tracking Requirements 2. Regulatory Changes Applicable to All Biogas Related Pathway s D. Clarification of the Definition of “Crop Residue” and Clarification of Feedstocks that EPA Considers Crop Residues 1. Clarification of the Definition of “Crop Residue” 2. Consideration of Corn Kernel Fiber as a Crop Residue a. Anal ys is of Corn Kernel Fiber as a Crop Residue b. Treatment of Corn Starch that Adheres to Corn Kernel Fiber After Separation from DDG c. Processing Corn Kernel Fiber 3. Id entification of Feedstocks EPA Considers Crop Residues 4. Registration, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements Associated with Using Crop Residue as a Feedstock a. Registration Requirements for Producers Utilizing Crop Residue as a Feedstock b. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Producers Utilizing Crop Residue as a Feedstock E. Amendments to Various RFS Compliance Related Provisions 1. Changes to Definitions 2. Provisions for Small Blenders of Renewable Fuels 3. Changes to § 8 0.1450

– Registration Requirements 4. Changes to § 80.1452

– EPA Moderated Transaction Sy stem (EMTS) Requirements

– Alternative Reporting Method for Sell and Buy Transactions for Assigned RINs 5 . Changes to Facility ’s Baseline Volume to Allow “Nameplate Ca pacit y” for Facilities not Claiming Exemption from the 20% GHG Reduction Threshold 6 . Changes to § 80.1463

– What P enalties Apply U nder the RFS P rogram? F. Minor Corrections to RFS Provisions V. Amendments to the E15 Misfueling Mitigation Rule*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **4** of **150** A. Changes t o § 80.1501

– Label B. Changes to § 80.1502

– E15 Survey C. Changes to § 80.1503

– Product Transfer Documents D. Changes to § 80.1504

– Prohibited Acts E. Changes to § 80.1500

– Definitions VI . Amendments to the Ultra L ow Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) Survey VII. 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 Refo rm 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 Safet y Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy

Suppl y, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and L ow - Income Populations. K. Congressional Review Act L. Clean Air Act Section 307(d) IX . Statutory

Provisions and Legal Authorit y*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **5** of **150 I. Why is EPA Taking This Action?**  EPA is taking this action to amend various provisions in its regulations pertaining to the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) program (40 CFR part 80, subpart M) and misfueling mitigation for 15 volume percent (%) ethanol blends (E15) (40 CFR part 80, subpart N) to assist regulated parties in complying with RFS and E15 requirements. EPA is also amending the ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) survey provisions (40 CFR part 80, subpart I) to decrease regulatory burdens and costs. **II. Does This Action Apply to Me?**  Entities potentially

affected by

this action include 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:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **6** of **150 Category**  **NAICS Codes a**  **SIC Codes b**  **Examples of Potentially Regulated Parties**  Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry 324110

325193 325199 424690 424710 424720 45431 0 486210 221117 562212 562219 221320 2911

2869 2869 5169 5171 5172 5989 4922 4911 4953 4953 4952 Petroleum refiners, importers.

Ethyl alcohol manufacturers. Other basic organic chemical manufacturers. Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers. Petroleum bulk stations and terminals. Petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers. F uel dealers. Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas . Biomass Electric Power Generation . Solid Waste Landfill . Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal . Sewage Treatment Facilities . a North American Industry Classification S ys tem (NAI CS). b Standard Industrial Classification (SI C) s ys tem code. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a gui de for readers regarding entities likely

to be regulated b y this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could be potentially regulated by

this action. Other ty

pes of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by

this action, yo u should carefully

examine the applicability criteria of part 80, subparts I, M and N 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 IN FORMAT ION CONTACT” section above. **III. Executive Summary**  In this rule, EPA is amending three sets of regulations. First, as described in section IV of this preamble, EPA is amending certain parts of the RFS program regulations at 40 CFR part*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **7** of **150** 80, subpart M. Some of the changes in this rule are of a substantive nature; others are more in the nature of technical corrections, including corrections of obvious omissions and errors in citation. Inthis final rule, EPA establishes requirements for determining the number of cellulosic biofuel Renewable Identification Numbers ( RI Ns ) that will be generated for fuel made from a range of cellulosic feedstocks. We also modify regulatory

provisions related to renewable fuel made from biogas, including a new compressed natural gas (CNG)/liquefied natural gas (LNG) cellulosic biofuel pathway , and add a new cellulosic biofuel pathway for renewable electricit y (used in electric vehicles) produced from biogas. These pathway s have the potential to provide notable volumes of cellulosic biofuel for use in complying with the RFS prog ram , since significant volumes of advanced biofuels are already being generated for fuel made from biogas, and in many cases this same fuel will qualify for cellulosic RI

Ns when this rule becomes effective. The approval of these new cellulosic pathway s co uld have an impact on EPA’s projection of 2014 cellulosic biofuel volumes in the final 2014 RFS standards rulemaking. EPA noted the possibility of such an impact in its proposed rule . 1 Many of the changes in today ’s rule will facilitate the introduction of new renewable fuels under the RFS program. By qualifying these new fuel pathway s, this rule provides opportunities to increase the volume of advanced, low - GHG renewable fuels

— such as cellulosic biofuels

— under the RFS program. EPA’s anal ys es show signif icant lifecycle GHG emission reductions from these fuel t ypes, as compared to the baseline gasoline or diesel fuel that they replace. In this rulemaking, EPA also clarifies or amends a number of RFS program regulations that define terms or address registr ation, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements. These include amendments related to: 1) use of crop residue and corn kernel fiber as renewable fuel feedstock; 2 ) definition of “small refinery”; 3) provisions for small blenders of renewable fuels; 4) when EPA may deactivate a 1 78 FR 71732, November 29, 2013*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **8** of **150** compan y registration; 5) the use for registration purposes of “nameplate capacity” for certain production facilities that do not claim exemption from the 20% greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction threshold; and 6) clarifying what penalties a ppl y under the RFS program. EPA is also making various changes to the E15 misfueling mitigation regulations (E15 MMR) at 40 CFR part 80, subpart N. Among the E15 changes are technical corrections and amendments to sections dealing with labeling, E15 s urvey s, product transfer documents, and prohibited acts. We also amend the definitions of E10 and E15 in subpart N to address a concern about the rounding of ethanol content test results, in response to a question raised by some industry stakeholders. In response to questions received from regulated parties, we amend the ultra - low sulfur diesel (ULSD) survey

provisions in a manner that reduces the number of samples required. This will reduce costs and burdens associated with compliance for regulated parties, with no expected degradation in the highl y successful environmental performance of the program. We received helpful comments from the public on these three issues, and provide response to them in this preamble. We are not finalizing at this time all of the proposed changes in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 2 Due to comments received and time constraints, we are not taking final action at this time on the proposed advanced butanol pathway , the proposed pathways for the production of renewa ble diesel, naphtha and renewable gasoline from biogas, or the proposed additional compliance requirements for non - RI N - generating foreign renewable fuel producers. We are 2 78 FR 36042, June 14, 2013.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **9** of **150** also not taking final action at this time on the definition of “producer” for renewable CNG/LNG and renewable electricit y from biogas sources , the definition of responsible corporate officer, or the proposed amendments to compliance related provisions for the alternative reporting method in § 80.1452. The Agency is deferring the final d ecision on these matters until a later time. **IV. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program Amendments**  In this rule, we are clarifyingrequirements related to existing cellulosic biofuel pathway s under the RFS program , and adopting new cellulosic biofuel pathway s. This rule also modifies a number of RFS program regulations . A. Renewable Identification Number ( RI N ) Generation for Fuels Made from Feedstocks Containing Cellulosic Biomass 1. Background The Clean Air Act (CAA) defines “cellulosic biofuel” as “renewable fuel derived from any cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin that is derived from renewable biomass and has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, as determined b y the Administrator, that are at least 60 percent less than the baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.” However, plants do not contain only cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin; depending on the plant species and other variables (such as variet y within a generic feedstock t ype and storage time) they can also contain varying amounts of other compounds. Using cellulosic biofuel production technologies, s ome of these other compounds may

be converted, along with the cellulosic compounds of plant feedstocks, into renewable fuel. When this occurs, biofuel producers must ascertain what ty pe of RIN or RINs to assign to the resulting renewable fuel. Prior to the proposal, EPA had not provided detailed*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **10** of **150** information on how other compounds should be treated, which led to uncertainty amongs t renewable fuel producers about whether their entire vol ume of fu e l produced from a cellulosic feedstock would be eligible to generate cellulosic RI Ns. In the proposed rule, EPA noted that existing RFS regulations specify that the fuel made from certain ty

pes of feedstocks that are predominantly of cellulosic content 3 (e.g., fuel made from the biogenic portion of separated municipal solid waste) are considered entirel y made from cellulosic material. 4 EPA noted that these regulations have been based on th e view that the statutory requirement that cellulosic biofuel be “derived from cellulose, hemicellulose or lignin” does not mandate that in all cases the renewable fuel must be produced only from the cellulosic material in the renewable biomass. Rather, E PA considers the statutory definition of cellulosic biofuel to be ambiguous on this point, providing EPA the discretion to reasonably determine under what circumstances a fuel appropriatel y should be considered cellulosic biofuel when the fuel is produced from a feedstock that contains a mixture of cellulosic and non - cellulosic materials. 5 Consistent with this view and the previously established statutory interpretation permitting assignment of a single RIN value to fuel produced predominantly from one source , EPA proposed that fuels made from feedstocks that are “predominantl y” cellulosic should be considered cellulosic biofuel and that all of the volume of fuels from such feedstocks could generate cellulosic biofuel RI Ns. Accordingl y, EPA proposed that the entire volume of fuel made pursuant to the cellulosic biofuel pathway s in Table 1 to § 80.1426 be for cellulosic biofuel

3 For purposes of this preamble, “cellulosic content” means cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. 4 75 FR 14670, 14706. In the March 2010 RFS rulemaking, EPA determined, in certain circumstances, it is appropriate for producers to base RIN assignment on th e predominant component. 5 78 FR 36042, 36047.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **11** of **150** RI Ns (D code of 3 or 7), based on EPA’s proposed determination that the feedstocks associated with those pathway s are composed predo minantl y of cellulosic materials. 6 EPA solicited comment in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on several alternative approaches, including a “cellulosic content threshold approach.” Under the cellulosic content threshold approach, EPA would set a minimum threshold of cellulosic content, and onl y fuels made from feedstocks meeting this minimum threshold would be eligible to generate cellulosic RI

Ns for their entire fuel volume. EPA suggested possible thresholds in the range of 70% to 99.9%. After evaluating the comments received, EPA has decided to finalize a cellulosic content approach, with a minimum cellulosic content threshold of 75%. In section IV.A.2, below, we discuss the merits of the approach generall y, and how we intend to implement it for feedstocks used in cellulosic biofuel pathway s listed in Table 1 to §80.1426. This includes special provisions for energy

cane and annual cover crops. In section s IV.A.3 and IV.A.4 we discuss how RI Ns should be allocated for fuel made from feedstocks containing less than 75% cellulosic content, and the registration, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the rule. In section IV.A. 5 we discuss application of the ce llulosic content threshold approach to feedstocks evaluated in the future, and in section IV.A. 6 we discuss in more detail the comments received and our responses to them.

6 EPA included in the docket for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking a Memorandum to the Docket, entitled “Cellulosic Content of Various Feedstocks

– 2014 Update,” available in docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401. This memorandum discusses the cellulosic content of v arious feedstocks, including most of the cellulosic feedstocks listed in cellulosic biofuel pathways in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426. The memorandum notes that the average adjusted cellulosic content of these feedstocks is at least 75%. Because of the high degree of natural variability in biomass, average adjusted cellulosic contents are likely more meaningful than any single value reported, because no single value can reflect the compositional range and variability present.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **12** of **150** 2. The Cellulosic Content Threshold Approach and its Application to Cellulosic Fee dstocks Currently L isted in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 EPA has decided to finalize the cellulosic content threshold approach and to set the minimum threshold as an average adjusted cellulosic content of 75%, measured on a dry mass basis. Since inorganic m aterials are not likely to end up in the final fuel product and would not contribute to the fuel heating content in the event that they remained in the final fuel, the “adjusted cellulosic content” is the percent of organic (non - ash) material that is cellu lose, hemicellulose, or lignin. 7 Consistent with previous precedents permitting assignment of a single RI N value to fuel produced predominantl y from one source, f uel s made from feedstocks that EPA determines meet this minimum threshold will, therefore, be eligible for cellulosic biofuel RI Ns for the entire fuel volume produced . As a result of this rule, all of the cellulosic biofuel made from the following feedstocks is eligible to generate cellulosic RINs for the entire volume of fuel produced: crop resi due, slash, pre - commercial thinnings and tree residue, switchgrass, miscanthus, Arundo donax, Pennisetum purpureum, and biogas from landfills, municipal wastewater treatment facility digesters , agricultural digesters, and separated MSW digesters (collectiv el y “predominantly cellulosic feedstocks” ). In addition, EPA is not modifying existing rules that allow generation of cellulosic biofuel RINs for the entire volume of fuel made from separated yard waste, see 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(5)(i)(A), and for the biogenic portion of fuel made from separated MS W, see 75 FR 14706 and 40 CFR 80.1426(f)(5)(v), other than to clarify that the testing requirement to determine biogenic content of finished fuel made from separated MSW does not apply

to biogas - d erived fuels. For such fuels, the anaerobic process limits

7 Further details about this de termination can be found in the Memorandum to the Docket, “Cellulosic Content of Various Feedstocks

– 2014 Update,” available in docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **13** of **150** digestion and associated biogas generation to the biogenic components of separated MSW, so all resulting fuel is appropriately considered biogenic. Fuels made from feedstocks which do not meet th e minimum 75% threshold , but which contain some level of cellulosic material, will be eligible to generate both cellulosic and non - cellulosic RI Ns using the apportionment methods described below. However, EPA is taking a different approach with respect to the Table 1 cellulosic feedstocks energy

cane and cover crops. Because considerable variability in cellulosic content may exist in plants that may be considered sugarcane or energy cane, we have amended the definition of energy

cane to specify

that it refers only

to cultivars that have been demonstrated to contain an average adjusted cellulosic content of at least 75%. Fuel made through cellulosic biofuel pathway s from feedstocks meeting the new definition of energy cane are eligible for cellulosic bio fuel RINs for the entire fuel volume . Annual cover crops will also be treated differently than other cellulosic feedstocks in Table 1. We do not have enough data about annual cover crops to be confident that they will alway s meet the 75% threshold. Therefore, in Table 1 annual cover crops wi ll still be listed as "cellulosic components of annual cover crops." However, we are also adding a new pathway for "non - cellulosic components of annual cover crops," which will be eligible for advanced RINs. In the future, as more information becomes ava ilable, we may revisit this determination. EPA believes that a 75% content threshold is consistent with the statutory definition of cellulosic biofuel, as EPA indicated in the NPRM, and satisfies the objective identified in the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **14** of **150** proposed rule of allowin g fuels made from feedstocks that are “predominantly” cellulosic to generate cellulosic biofuel RI Ns for their entire fuel volume. A threshold of 75% also allows fuel made from all predominantly cellulosic feedstocks to generate RINs for their entire fuel volume, consistent with EPA’s principal proposal. As compared to alternative approaches discussed in the NPRM, the approach will also greatly simplify compliance by

cellulosic biofuel producers and reduce regulatory burden, since for qualifying cellulosi c feedstocks the approach to RI N generation is straightforward and will not require testing or apportionment of RINs. These benefits, in turn, should help to promote cellulosic biofuel production, consistent with Congressional objectives. This final rule will help to ensure that cellulosic RI Ns are in fact onl y generated for fuels derived predominantl y from cellulosic materials. Because all of the fuel produced from predominantly cellulosic feedstocks will qualify for cellulosic biofuel RINs, EPA is making related modifications to the text in Table 1 to § 80.1426. Specificall y we are deleting the references to “cellulosic biomass from” in rows K, L, M, and N to reflect that fuel made pursuant to the listed pathway s from the feedstocks listed without thi s modifier are eligible to generate cellulosic biofuel RINs even though the feedstocks contain some non - cellulosic compounds. However, because certain production processes that can be used to produce cellulosic biofuel may be employ ed so as to only derive fuel from the non - cellulosic components of feedstock, EPA is also modifying the production process description in these lines in the table to specify that the production process must convert the cellulosic components of feedstock into biofuel. The effect is that cellulosic RI Ns may only be generated when a production process is employ ed that in fact produces biofuel that is derived from the cellulosic content of feedstocks.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **15** of **150** Many commenters agreed that the cellulosic feedstocks currentl y listed in Tabl e 1 are predominantly

composed of cellulosic components and that allowing all of the fuel derived from these feedstocks to qualify for cellulosic biofuel RINs is consistent with the statutory definition of cellulosic biofuels. Some commenters asserted that allowing all the fuel produced from the cellulosic feedstocks in Table 1 was an overl y expansive interpretation of the statutory definition of cellulosic biofuels. 8 EPA considers the statutory definition to be ambiguous on the point of whether cellulosi c biofuel RI Ns may be generated for fuel produced from predominantly cellulosic material, allowing EPA discretion to reasonably interpret this definition. As established in previous rulemakings, 9 EPA believes the statutory definition does not mandate that in all cases cellulosic biofuel must be produced exclusively from cellulosic material in the renewable biomass, and today ’s rule adopts a common - sense approach to the matter that allows fuel made from predominantly cellulosic feedstocks to qualify as cel lulosic biofuel. In the NPRM, EPA invited comment on an appropriate threshold value for use with a cellulosic threshold approach. EPA received comments on a wide range of suggested threshold values, with many

commenters supporting 70% and 80%, some suggesting multiple thresholds, and some commenters requesting much higher (95%) thresholds. Some commenters opposed setting a cellulosic content threshold because there is not a consensus on a value for a threshold, and one commenter asserted that settin g a minimum threshold content may stifle development of

8 Comments provided by AFPM/API (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0128) and Chevron (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 017 1). 9 EPA has previously considered instances where fuel would generate cellulosic biofuel RINs even if produced from feedstocks containing both cellulosic and non - cellulosic materials. In the March 2010 RFS rulemaking, EPA determined that biofuel from sep arated yard waste qualified as cellulosic and would generate cellulosic RINs because separated yard waste was “largely cellulosic.” 75 FR 14794, March 26, 2010.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **16** of **150** new feedstocks. In response, EPA has decided that a cellulosic content threshold of 75% is a reasonable value that appropriatel y implements the statutory requirements. 10 Feedstocks which do not meet o r exceed a 75% minimum cellulosic content threshold have a more significant non cellulosic portion of the feedstock which could contribute to the volume of fuel produced. These feedstocks start to resemble traditional crops that have been developed for purposes other than energy generation, such as crops that are grown for their sugar content (e.g., sugarcane, sweet sorghum). EPA believes that a threshold significantly below 75% might inadvertentl y encourage use of multipurpose feedstocks for the producti on of fuels that are qualified for cellulosic RINs, in lieu of the feedstocks with a higher cellulosic content that Congress envisioned would be used to produce this category

of biofuel. On the other hand, a threshold higher than 75% would result in regul atory

and administrative burdens on the use of predominantl y cellulosic feedstocks. 11 EPA believes that the 75% threshold strikes a reasonable balance among these considerations, while remaining consistent with the statutory definition of cellulosic biofue ls and past regulatory approaches that EPA has taken for specified feedstocks. While arguments could be made for other numeric values, EPA believes that a rational basis exists for settling on 75%, as explained in this rule, and is within EPA’s exercise o f discretion to reasonabl y interpret the CAA. EPA believes that the 75% threshold, which is well over a 50% or “majorit y” value, is consistent with the concept that cellulosic content should be predominant in feedstocks for which all resulting fuel is qua lified for cellulosic biofuel RINs . T he 75% threshold also eliminates the current regulatory

uncertaint y for cellulosic biofuel producers , minimizes regulatory burden, and as a

10 All fuel that qualifies for cellulosic biofuel RINs must achieve a minimum 60% lifecycle gree nhouse gas emissions reduction as compared to baseline fuels, even if some portion of the fuel is derived from non - cellulosic materials. 11 Requirements for determining the number of cellulosic biofuel RINs that may be generated for fuel derived from feeds tocks that do not satisfy the minimum cellulosic content threshold adopted in today’s rule are described in section IV.A.3 of this preamble.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **17** of **150** consequence should help promote the production of the category of renewable fuels that provides the most lifecycle GHG emissions benefits. 3 . Compliance Requirements for Producers of Cellulosic Biofuel made from Feedstocks that are not Predominantl y Cellulosic In the proposal, EPA invited comment on how to determine the approp riate ty pe of R IN or RI Ns for fuel that is produced from feedstocks that contain cellulosic material, but where the feedstocks are not predominantly cellulosic in content. Based on the comments received, EPA believes that the existing regulations at §80.1 426(f)(3)(vi) provide an appropriate mechanism for allocation of RINs, both for processes that convert two or more feedstocks simultaneously where not all feedstocks are predominantly cellulosic, and for processes using a single feedstock that has an avera ge cellulosic content below 75%. However, EPA is amending the regulations, by adding new registration, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements (“RRR requirements”) to allow EPA to verify

that the formula in §80.1426(f)(3)(vi) is being applied appropriat el y for cellulosic biofuel RIN generation . EPA believes that, to relieve regulatory burden and streamline program implementation , it makes sense to establish a 75% minimum cellulosic content threshold above which testing and reporting of cellulosic content and RI N apportionment is not necessary . However, when fuel is made from feedstocks below the 75% cellulosic content threshold, EPA believes that testing of the feedstock’s cellulosic content is appropriate, and that RI Ns should be apportioned according to the test results.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **18** of **150** EPA recognizes that one result of today ’s rule is that fuel made from a feedstock meeting the 75% minimum cellulosic content threshold will qualify completel y for cellulosic RI Ns, whereas fuel made from a feedstock containing 74% cellulosic content would, through the apportionment formula, only qualify for at most 74% cellulosic RINs. EPA believes it is appropriate to have simplified procedures for fuel made from feedstocks that are predominantl y cellulosic, and has selected a 75% thr eshold to identify these feedstocks. At some level of content, EPA believes there is less benefit to requiring that manufacturers account for the increasingl y small non - cellulosic content of the feedstock. EPA has determined that 75% cellulosic content i s a large enough percentage that it is appropriate to allow full qualification. This results in a simplified implementation approach for the large majority of feedstocks ty picall y considered “cellulosic” in nature. While this obviously allows significant ly

greater benefits to producers using feedstock s above 75% cellulosic content , compared with fuel derived from feedstock s containing just below 75% cellulosic content , the difference is the inevitable result of having an y sort of threshold level. Wherever EPA set the threshold, fuels made from feedstocks that just fail to satisfy the threshold will be treated differentl y. For the reasons provided, EPA believes that the approach is reasonable and appropriate. As one possible approach to addressing the disparity between fuels made from feedstocks that meet the 75% minimum cellulosic content threshold and those that do not, EPA considered the option of allowing up to an additional 25% of fuel made from feedstock not meeting the threshold to qualify

f or cellulosic biofuel RI

Ns, beyond levels that are determined to reflect the cellulosic converted fraction . While this approach could be seen as providing more equitable treatment of fuels made from feedstocks that satisfy the 75% cellulosic content thres hold and*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **19** of **150** those that do not, EPA determined that it would be inappropriate. The principal objective of the cellulosic content approach adopted today is to minimize burdens and streamline program implementation for both EPA and producers of cellulosic biofu el and provide incentives for production of fuels that are 75% or greater cellulosic content . However, for fuels made from feedstocks that do not meet the minimum cellulosic content threshold, testing (either of cellulosic content of feedstock or of the p roportion of fuel derived from cellulosic content) will be required. In cases where the expense and burden of testing is undertaken , EPA believes it is most consistent with the objectives of the Act for RIN apportionment to accurately reflect the test res ults. 4 . Testing, Registration, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Cellulosic Biofuel The agency

requested comment on test methods available to determine what percentage of a finished biofuel volume was derived from cellulosic or non - cellulosic components. At the time of the proposal, we were not aware of an y ready test that could be used to identify the amount of a finished fuel that was derived from cellulosic versus non - cellulosic components. However, we received several comme nts that suggested there are methods available for this purpose. 12 Given this new information, we believe it is reasonable to require the use of these existing methods under certain circumstances when fuel is produced from feedstocks that are not predominantly

cellulosic to verify

that the values used in the formula at §80.1426(f)(3)(vi) are as

12 C omments suggested various methods to determine the converted fraction, including approaches for performing a m ass - balance accounting of feedstock components converted to fuel products. As described in the memo to the docket, “Additional Detail on the Calculation of the Cellulosic Converted Fraction, and Attribution of Batch RINs for D - code Dependent Feedstocks,” available in docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401, a mass balance approach which meets the requirements discussed below is an appropriate method for calculating the converted fraction. Converted fraction refers to the portion of the feedstock converted into renewab le fuel by the producer and is used in calculating cellulosic RIN volumes generated.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **20** of **150** accurate as possible. Therefore, as part of this final rule, we are requiring the use of these available test methods under certain circumstances described below to help ensure that an appropriate number of cellulosic RINs are generated when appl yi ng the formula at §80.1426(f)(3)(vi). As described in more detail below, different feedstocks and processes require more information to ensure a high degree of confiden ce that cellulosic biofuel RINs are appropriately generated. These registration, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, including changes to the production process requirements of Table 1 to §80.1426, are described in the following sections. These re quirements apply to all relevant registrations and registration updates , including cellulosic biofuel pathway s approved pursuant to a § 80.1416 petition process which take place after the effective date of this rule.

a. Additional Registration Requirements for Certain Producers Seeking to Generate Cellulosic Biofuel RINs . At registration or during registration updates under §80.1450(d)(3), all producers seeking to use a cellulosic biofuel pathway that converts cellulosic biomass to fuel (currentl y rows K, L, M, and N of Table 1 to §80.1426, or as otherwise approved b y EPA ) , must demonstrate that their production process has the ability to convert cellulosic components to fuel by including (1) a process diagram with all relevant unit processes labeled and a designation of which unit process is capable of performing cellulosic treatment; (2) a description of the cellulosic biomass treatment process; and (3) a description of the mechanical, chemica l, and biochemical*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **21** of **150** mechanism s by

which cellulosic materials can be converted to fermentable sugars or biofuel products. In addition, an independent professional engineer must verify that the equipment to perform each of the relevant unit processes require d to convert cellulosic biomass to biofuel is in place as part of registration, in order to demonstrate that the conversion process will derive the finished fuel from cellulosic components. b. Additional Registration Requirements for Renewable Fuel Pro duced from Energy Cane . Energy cane is derived from sugarcane, which can be and is bred for a variety of uses and a wide range of fiber and sugar contents. 13 Prior to this rule, energy cane was defined in 40 CFR 80.1401 as “a complex hybrid in the Sacchar um genus that has been bred to maximize cellulosic rather than sugar content.” This definition did not include an y specific requirements regarding cellulosic content. However, some cultivars 14 of cane are bred to have a high sugar content and therefore have a lower percent cellulosic content. For example, two cultivars released by USDA, which are commonly

referred to as energy

cane, 15 have cellulosic contents of approximately 50% on a dry matter basis. 16 Fuel produced from these cultivars would not be deri ved predominantly

13 Tew , Thomas L. and Robert M. Cobill. 2008. Genetic improvement of sugarcane ( Saccharum spp.) as an energy crop. p. 249 - 272. In: W. Vermerris (ed.) Genetic Improvement of Bioenergy Crops. Springer. 14 A cultivar is a subset of a species. USDA has provided a list of sugarcane cultivars (including energy cane). This list, “USDA ARS Sugarcane Release Notices 1999 to 2012,” is included in the docket. 15 Ho 00 - 961 and HoCP 91 - 552; Tew , Thomas L. and Robert M. Cobill. 2008. Genetic improvement of sugarcane ( Saccharum spp.) as an energy crop. p. 249 - 272. In: W. Vermerris (ed.) Genetic Improvement of Bioenergy Crops. Springer. 16 Tew , T. L. et al, 2007. “Notice of release of high - fiber sugarcane variety Ho 00 - 961.” Sugar Bulletin, 85(10) 23 - 24. Tew , T. L. et al, 2007. “Notice of release of high - fiber sugarcane variety HoCP 91 - 552.” Sugar Bulletin, 85(1 0) 25 - 26. Ho 00 - 961 has a Brix value of 17 - 19% cane, and HoCP 91 - 552 has a Brix value of 15 - 18% cane, where Brix is a measure of the total soluble solids, including sugar. These Brix values are similar to the Brix value of a traditional sugarcane cultivar presented in these papers. Ho 00 - 961 has a percent cellulosic content of 47%, and HoCP 91 - 552 has a percent cellulosic content of 48%. The percent cellulosic content is calculated using the fiber content (as a measure of the cellulosic content) presente d in the papers, divided by the total solids content (Brix + fiber). By contrast, energy cane cultivar L 79 - 1002, w hich has a higher fiber content, has a Brix value of 8 - 12% cane, as reported by Bischoff, K.P. et al, 2008. “Registration of ‘L 79 - 1002’ sugarcane.” Journal of Plant*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **22** of **150** from cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin; instead, the fuel would largely be derived from sugar. Therefore, in this rule EPA is amending the definition of energy cane to specify

that it means cultivars that have, on average, at least 75 % adjusted cellulosic content on a dry matter basis. Cultivars that do not meet the 75% adjusted cellulosic content threshold will be considered sugarcane. With this clarification, only cultivars that have predominantly cellulosic content are included in the definition of energy cane and are qualified to generate cellulosic RI Ns for the entire volume of finished fuel produced. When cultivars containing less than 75% adjusted cellulosic content are used to make fuel, we consider those cultivars to be sugarcane and eligible to generate advanced biofuel RINs for the portion of fuel that is derived from sugar. If the bagasse is converted to renewable fuel, cellulosic RI Ns could be generated for the amount of fuel derived from the bagasse (under the existing crop residue pathway). Upon registration, fuel producers seeking to produce cellulosic biofuel using energy cane feedstocks will need to submit data showing that the average adjusted cellulosic content of each energy cane cultivar they intend to use is at least 75%, based on the average of at least three representative samples of each cultivar . 17 Cultivars must be grown under normal growing conditions and consistent with accepted farming practices. Samples must come from a feedstock supplier that the fuel producer intends to use when operating their production process and must represent the feedstock supplier’s range of growing conditions and locations. Producers that decide after initial registration to use energy cane or a new energy

cane cultivar will need to Registrations, 2(3) 211 - 217, and Hale, A.L. 2010, “Notice of release of a high fiber sugarcane variety Ho 02 - 113.” Sugar Bulletin, 88(10) 28 - 29. 17 As described above and in the Memorandum to the Docket , “Cellulosic Content of Vari ous Feedstocks

– 2014 Update,” available in docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401, adjusted cellulosic content is the percent of organic (non ash) material that is cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Therefore, a calculation of the adjusted cellulosic content requires a measurement of the cellulosic content, as well as a measurement of the ash content of a feedstock.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **23** of **150** update their registration and provide data to EPA demonstrating the average adjusted cellulosic content for each cultivar they intend to use. Cellulosic content data must come from an anal yt ical method certified by a voluntary

consensus standards body (VCSB) or a non - VCSB method that would produce reasonabl y accurate results. 18 Producers using a non - VCSB approved method will need to show that the method used is an adequate means of providing reasonabl y accurate results by providing peer reviewed re ferences to the third part y engineer performing the engineering review at registration. Because cane can be bred for a variety of uses, and different cultivars of cane can have different amounts of cellulosic material, these registration requirements will help ensure that fuel producers know whether or not the cultivars they intend to use meet the 75% adjusted cellulosic content threshold and are qualified to generate RINs for the entire volume of finished fuel. EPA expects to require similar registration requirements for producers seeking to produce cellulosic biofuel using feedstocks that will be evaluated in the future that could similarly be bred for a wide range of uses and fiber content.

c. Additional Registration, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Re quirements for Producers of Cellulosic Fuels Derived from the Simultaneous Conversion of Feedstocks that are Predominantly Cellulosic and Feedstocks that are Not Predominantly Cellulosic . Under §80.1426(f)(3)(vi), if a renewable fuel producer produces a s ingle t ype of renewable fuel (e.g., ethanol) using two or more different feedstocks which are processed simultaneously , and at least one of the feedstocks does not have a minimum 75% average
18 For example, AOAC 2002.04 “Amylase - Treated Neutral Detergent Fiber in Feeds” or ASTM E1758 “Determination of Carbohydrates in Biomass by High Per formance Liquid Chromatography.” Voluntary consensus standards bodies are defined as “ dom estic or international organizations which plan, develop, establish, or coordinate voluntary standards using agreed - upon procedures.” See “Federal Use of Standards,” Office of Management and Budget, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_a119rev .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **24** of **150** adjusted cellulosic content , the producer would have to determine how much of the finished fuel is derived from the cellulosic versus non - cellulosic components of the feedstocks and assign RI Ns to the finished fuel based on the relative “converted fractions . ” 19 Given variations in individual conversion processes, enz ym es used, and other differences, the amount of finished fuel that is derived from the cellulosic content can vary . For example, the process and enzy mes used may do a better job of converting the sugars and starches in a feedstock than the cellulose or hemicellulose. In such a case the cellulosic content of the feedstock may not be a good indicator of the am ount of finished biofuel that is derived from cellulosic materials. Furthermore, depending on the conversion process used, the amount of information needed to determine how much of the finished fuel is derived from the cellulosic content will also vary . Therefore, EPA believes it is prudent to include specific requirements related to calculating the cellulosic converted fraction and to specify appropriate registration, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for producers seeking to generate cellulosi c RINs using two or more feedstocks 20 which are processed simultaneously . EPA has attempted to minimize additional requirements, so has limited certain provisions to circumstances where a producer seeks to generate cellulosic RINs for fuel produced b y “in situ” biochemical h ydrol ys is treatment where cellulosic and non - cellulosic components of feedstocks (at least one of which is not predominantly

cellulosic) are simultaneousl y hydrol yz ed to fermentable sugars (e.g., corn starch and a crop residue). These a dditional registration, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements will also apply to producers that combine cellulosic - and non - cellulosic - derived

19 See § 80.1426(f)(3)(vi). Converted fraction refers to the portion of the feedstock converted into renewable fuel by the producer and is used in calculating cellulosic RIN volumes generated. 20 As described in section IV.A.5, if a future feedstock does not meet the 75% threshold, we consider it as comprised of two separate feedstocks: one cellulosic and one non - cellu losic.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **25** of **150** sugars from separate h ydroly sis units prior to fermentation. In the latter case, the cellulosic conversion f

actor can be obtained by

anal yz ing feedstock conversion in the cellulosic hydroly sis unit. A fundamental distinction relevant to verifying conversion of cellulosic content is whether or not a process converts the entire organic fraction into fuel. Thermo chemical conversion is an example of a process that converts the entire organic fraction. Thermochemical processes mainl y consist of (1) p yrol ys is: a process in which cellulosic biomass is decomposed with temperature to bio - oils that can be further proces sed to produce a finished fuel or (2) gasification: a process in which cellulosic biomass is decomposed to synthesis gas (“s yn gas”) that with further catal yt ic processing can produce a finished fuel product. Thermochemical processes t ypically convert all of the organic components of the feedstock into finished fuel, thus the finished fuel produced from the thermochemical process is proportional to the cellulosic content of the organic fraction of the feedstock material. Alternativel y, biochemical conversion is an example of a non - thermochemical ty pe of process that does not convert the entire organic fraction into fuel. Biochemical processes convert different fractions of the cellulosic and non - cellulosic carboh ydrates to finished fuel. During th is process, enz ym atic h ydrolysis releases sugars from feedstock carboh ydrates and emplo ys microorganisms to convert those sugars into fuels. Since thermochemical processes t ypicall y convert all of the organic components of the feedstock into finished fue l, fewer recordkeeping and reporting requirements are necessary to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **26** of **150** verify appropriate cellulosic biofuel RIN generation for producers using thermochemical conversion processes. In addition, since the finished fuel produced from the thermochemical process is proportional to the cellulosic content of the organic fraction of the feedstock material, demonstration of the cellulosic content of the feedstock is the only additional registration requirement that is necessary for thermochemical processes. In contra st, biochemical conversion does not convert the entire organic fraction into fuel and the convert ed fraction is variable and not proportional to the cellulosic content of the organic fraction of the feedstock material . Therefore, we believe it is prudent to require additional registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for in situ biochemical conversion processes to ensure that cellulosic RI Ns are appropriately

generated for the finished fuel. In the proposal, EPA requested comment on conver sion technologies, and we also requested comment on whether to allow 100% of the fuel produced via biochemical processes to generate cellulosic RINs. EPA received comments supporting our proposal to allow biochemical processes to generate 100% cellulosic RI Ns but, as discuss e d above , biochemical processes will also ty picall y convert portions of the sugar and starch components of the feedstock. If feedstocks containing significant amounts of starches and sugars are used in a biochemical process, the resul ting fuel may not be predominantly

of cellulosic origin. Therefore, EPA is not finalizing this aspect of its proposal. Instead, EPA has finalized the cellulosic threshold approach which will generall y allow cellulosic biofuel RIN generation for all fuel produced b y cellulosic conversion processes using feedstocks determined to have an average adjusted cellulosic content of at least 75%.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **27** of **150** i. Registration Requirements . As explained in section IV.A. 4 .a, at registration, producers seeking to use a cellulosic biofuel pathway that converts cellulosic biomass to fuel (currentl y listed in rows K, L, M, and N of Table 1 to §80.1426 ) , or as otherwise approved by EPA, must demonstrate the ability to convert cellulosic components of their feedstock to fuel. In addition, producers seeking to generate cellulosic RINs (D code of 3 or 7) using two or more different feedstocks (at least one of which does not have at least 75 % average adjusted cellulosic content) which are processed simultaneously

using a thermochemical conversion process will be able to allocate cellulosic RI Ns using the formula in §80.1426(f)(3)(vi) where the cellulosic fraction is proportional to the cellul osic content of the feedstock. The average adjusted cellulosic content of the feedstock will have to be reported at registration, based on the average of at least three representative samples, and cellulosic content data must come from an analy tical metho d certified by

a voluntary consensus standards body (VCSB) or a non - VCSB method that would produce reasonabl y accurate results. 21 Producers using a non - VCSB approved method will need to show that the method used is an adequate means of providing reasonably accurate results by providing peer reviewed references to the third part y engineer performing the engineering review at registration. Producers that later want to change their feedstock will need to update their registration. Parties that initially

regi stered prior to the effective date of this rule must comply with the new requirements at their next required registration update.

21 For example, AOAC 2002.04 “Amylase - Treated Neutral Detergent Fiber in Feeds” or ASTM E1758 “Determination of Carbohydrates in Biomass by High Performance Liquid Chromatography.”*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **28** of **150** Producers generating RINs with a D code of 3 or a D code of 7 using two or more different feedstocks (at least one of which d oes not have at least 75% average adjusted cellulosic content) which are processed simultaneously through an in situ biochemical hydrol ys is treatment will similarly

have additional registration requirements to help ensure that cellulosic RI Ns are being gen erated accurately . At the time of registration, such a producer must submit (1) the overall fuel yi eld 22 including supporting data demonstrating this yield and a discussion of the possible variability

in overall fuel yield that could be expected between reporting periods; (2) the cellulosic converted fraction that will be used for generating RINs under §80.1426(f)(3)(vi), including chemical anal ysis data (described in more detail below) supporting the calculated cellulosic converted fraction and a discussio n of the possible variability that could be expected between reporting periods; and (3) a description of how the cellulosic converted fraction is determined and calculations showing how the data were used to determine the cellulosic converted fraction . Data used to calculate the cellulosic converted fraction by producers using in situ biochemical h ydrol ys is treatment who seek to generate cellulosic RINs must be representative and obtained using an analy tical method certified by

a voluntary

consensus standards bod y (VCSB) or using a non - VCSB method that would produce reasonably accurate results. If using a non - VCSB approved method to generate the data required to calculate the cellulosic converted fraction for a giv en fuel, then the producer will need to show that the method used is an adequate means of providing reasonably accurate results by

providing peer reviewed references to the third party

engineer performing the engineering review at registration. A full des cription of the

22 The overall fuel yield is determined to be the total volume of fu el produced (e.g., cellulosic plus non - cellulosic fuel volume) divided by the total feedstock mass (sum of all feedstock masses) on a dry mass basis.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **29** of **150** formulas in §80.1426(f)(3) used to calculate RINs for renewable fuel described by two or more pathway s, including methods used to calculate the converted fraction , can be found in the associated memo to the docket. 23 ii. Additional Cellul osic Converted Fraction Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements . Producers generating cellulosic RI Ns using two or more different feedstocks (at least one of which does not have at least 75% average adjusted cellulosic content) which are processed simul taneously

using an in situ biochemical hydroly sis treatment will also have additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements to provide ongoing verification that the cellulosic RI Ns are being accurately

allocated. The converted fraction provides a comprehensive accounting of the portion of a feedstock that is converted into cellulosic fuel. The formula in §80.1426(f)(3)(vi) requires producers to calculate a converted fraction for each category of RINs generated. That converted fraction is then used t o determine the appropriate number and ty pe of R INs to assign to a batch of renewable fuel. Comments suggested calculating the amount of the finished fuel derived from the cellulosic and non - cellulosic components could create an administrative burden if required on a batch - by - batch basis. EPA is structuring applicable registration, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in a manner intended to result in accurate accounting while also avoiding overly

23 “Additional Detail on the Calculation of the Cellulosic Converted Fraction, and Attribution of Batch RIN s for D code Dependent Feedstocks,” which is available in docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **30** of **150** burdensome requirements. Therefore the final rule provides that the cellulosic converted fraction will initially

be based on the data submitted at registration. This upfront converted fraction determination will apply to RINs produced until a new converted fracti on allocation is available and reported. The interval at which a new converted fraction must be reported is similarly intended to avoid unnecessary burden on producers. EPA is requiring that low volume producers calculate the cellulosic converted fraction annuall y. However, for higher volume producers, we believe more frequent calculating and reporting is prudent and are requiring that the cellulosic converted fraction be recalculated within 10 business day s of every

500,000 gallons of cellulosic RI Ns generated. This information will be reported in the quarterl y report. Low - volume producers may report the current converted fraction value used to generate RINs on their quarterl y reports if they have not produced 500,000 cellulosic gallons in the c alendar ye ar. Periodic cellulosic converted fraction determinations will be made by collecting new process data and performing the same chemical anal ys is approved at registration , using representative data . If at an y point new data show that the converte d fraction is different from that reported in the previous period, the formula used to generate RINs at §80.1426(f)(3)(vi) must be updated as soon as practical but no later than 5 business day s after the producer receives the new data. If new testing data results in a change to the cellulosic converted fraction , onl y R INs generated after the new testing data were received would be affected. In addition if a renewable fuel producer changes their process (for example, stops using enzy mes in their cellulosic hydrol ys is or changes the enzy mes used), the producer must calculate a new converted fraction and update their registration consistent with §80.1450(d).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **31** of **150** Given the natural variation in cellulosic content and conversion efficiencies, EPA recognizes some v ariation will exist in the amount of cellulosic fuel that is derived from the cellulosic components of a feedstock. However, certain circumstances raise significant concerns with respect to cellulosic RI N generation. While we believe that variation withi n 10% of the previously

calculated numbers may

result under normal operating conditions, larger variations raise concerns that the process or feedstock has significantly changed from what was approved at registration. If the cellulosic converted fraction deviates from the previously calculated cellulosic converted fraction by 10% or more, it is appropriate for the producer to alert EPA to this change and update the formula used to calculate RI N allocations as soon as possible. The producer must (1) notify EPA within 5 business day s and (2) adjust the formula used to generate RI Ns at §80.1426(f)(3)(vi) for all fuel generated as soon as practical but no later than 5 business day s after the producer receives the new data. As explained above, if new testing d ata results in a change to the cellulosic converted fraction , only RI Ns generated after the new testing data were received would be affected. 5 . Determining the Average Adjusted Cellulosic Content of Feedstocks Going Forward EPA will apply

the minimum average adjusted cellulosic content threshold framework described above for feedstocks evaluated in the future. If these feedstocks meet the 75% average adjusted cellulosic content threshold, we will allow the fuel producer usin g them in approved cellulosic biofuel pathway s to generate cellulosic RI Ns for all of the finished fuel volume. If the feedstock does not meet the 75% threshold, we would expect to create two separate regulatory pathway s – one involving “cellulosic compon ents of [feedstock X ]” and another involving “non -*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **32** of **150** cellulosic components of [feedstock X]”). A producer using both of these feedstocks which are processed simultaneously , would allocate cellulosic and non - cellulosic RINs using the formula in §80.1426(f)(3) (vi). Fuel producers using feedstocks evaluated in the future would also be subject to the appropriate registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements described in section IV.A. 4 . EPA anticipates that it will determine the cellulosic content of newly evaluated feedstocks that might be used to produce cellulosic biofuel up front when it conducts a lifecy cle anal ys is of a pathway

involving the new feedstock. For example, EPA will calculate the average adjusted cellulosic content of feedstocks such as energy sorghum and energy

beets at the same time that we evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with these feedstocks. As with lifecycle anal ys es, EPA may undertake the evaluation of the cellulosic content of feedstocks either in the context of a rulemaking to amend Table 1 to §80.1426, or in response to an individual petition submitted pursuant to §80.1416. In either case, EPA will clarify whether the feedstock meets the 75% cellulosic content threshold allowing cellulosic RINs to be generat ed for the entire fuel volume produced, or if the producer should use the apportionment method in §80.1426(f)(3)(vi). F uture petitioners pursuant to the process in §80.1416 should submit peer reviewed data on the average cellulosic content of their feeds tock as well as their own estimate of cellulosic content based on these data. In the proposal, EPA sought comment on whether individual producers should be responsible for submitting data on the cellulosic content of their feedstock, or whether EPA sho uld determine whether feedstocks meet the threshold based on existing published data. We*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **33** of **150** received comments that EPA should determine whether feedstocks meet the threshold and should use existing published data. In addition, we received a range of opinion s on whether the producer should also be required to provide data. Some comments suggested that EPA should use both existing published data and data from the producer, because academic publications may not be up to date with industry . Some comments said fuel producers should be allowed to present data if their feedstocks have higher cellulosic content than published data. One comment said that if no peer - reviewed data exist, the producers should provide data. Some comments suggested that producers shoul d be required to maintain documentation of cellulosic content, as well as evidence that the cellulosic content was the primary source of biofuels production. Others commented that producers should not be required to measure, submit and certify feedstock c omposition. In the future, producers should submit data regarding cellulosic content in order to ensure a determination is made on the most up to date data. EPA will evaluate this information, together with other available information, on a case b y case basis to determine whether feedstocks meet the cellulosic content threshold . 6 . Other Comments Received EPA considered a range of alternative approaches for determin in g appropriate cellulosic RI N generation with different t ypes of feedstocks. These approaches were discussed in the NPRM and also evaluated in public comments. This section discusses these alternative approaches and comments.

a . Treatment of Cellulosic Feedstocks Currently Listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **34** of **150** In the NPRM, EPA sought comment on multiple approaches for determining the volume of cellulosic RINs from currentl y approved cellulosic feedstocks listed in Table 1 to §80.1426. Many commenters preferred allowing feedstock sources listed in Table 1 to §80 .1426 to generate cellulosic RI

Ns without applying a threshold, although some commenters asserted a minimum content threshold could be used in conjunction with the proposed approach. Inaddition, one commenter suggested adding “planted trees from a tree p lantation” to Table 1 to §80.1426. 24 However, this addition would require further analy sis of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of this feedstock, and is beyond the scope of this rule. As discussed above, EPA is finalizing the cellulosic content thre shold approach that generally qualifies all fuel produced from predominantly

cellulosic feedstocks pursuant to existing cellulosic biofuel pathway s listed in Table 1 for cellulosic RINs. In addition, the approach will guide EPA evaluation of future feedst ocks not currentl y i ncluded in Table 1 to §80.1426. Some commenters asserted EPA should adopt a plurality approach to determining whether cellulosic RINs could be generated when using particular feedstocks. 25 In stead of requiring that the cellulosic content make up a predominant percentage of the organic material from which the fuel is derived, under this approach, feedstocks would be deemed cellulosic if a plurality of the contained material is cellulosic. EPA acknowledges that such an approach would likely lead to larger production volumes of cellulosic biofuels. However, as discussed above, the statutory definition of cellulosic biofuel provides that they are “derived from cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin.” EPA believes that to effectuate Congressional intent in promoting 24 Comment provided by Blue Source (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0137). 25 Comments provided by Smithfield Foods (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0103) and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0178).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **35** of **150** fuels derived from these sources, it is appropriate to require that qualifying fuels be predominantly

cellulosic in content. Therefore the 75% cellulosic content threshold approach a dopted today

is preferable in this regard to the commenter’s suggestion. Other commenters contended EPA should establish a minimum cellulosic content for individual feedstocks and assign RINs based onl y on this content, instead of allowing feedstocks cur rentl y listed in Table 1 to §80.1426 to generate cellulosic RI Ns for their entire fuel volume. 26 EPA believes this approach would create unnecessary administrative and regulatory burden. Instead of setting a minimum content for each individual feedstock, EPA is finalizing a single cellulosic content threshold. EPA has determined that most of the feedstocks listed in Table 1 to § 80.1426 for cellulosic biofuel pathway s satisfy the 75% cellulosic content threshold adopted today . In addition, as described in section IV.A. 5 , EPA will assess the cellulosic content of future individual feedstocks as part of the lifecycle anal ys is process and determine whether the feedstock exceeds this threshold. Therefore, individual feedstocks will be analyzed to determine if they meet the minimum cellulosic content threshold, and different regulatory provisions apply depending on the result. Several commenters stated that the emphasis should be placed on whether a feedstock meets the 60 percent reduction in greenhouse gas e missions relative to the baseline petroleum fuel they replace, 27 particularly

where a feedstock is predominantly cellulosic. 28 One commenter also noted the agency

should emphasize whether the feedstock has similar overall environmental
26 Comments provided by AFPM/API (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0128) and Chevron (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0171). 27 Comments provided by BP (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0130), Iow a Corn Grow ers Association (EPA - HQ - OAR 2012 - 0401 - 013 1), and NRDC (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0136). 28 Comments provided by BP (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0130) and NRDC (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0136).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **36** of **150** qualities as a feedst ock that is entirely cellulosic, such as the potential to avoid competition with food, the potential to require less fertilizer, pesticides, and irrigation, and the potential for a lower fossil fuel energy

input requirement. 29 Inresponse, EPA notes that i t is required to implement the statutory

requirements, and that the CAA is clear that a cellulosic biofuel must be both derived from cellulosic materials and meet the 60 percent GHG emission reduction threshold. Therefore, EPA is not free to establish regulations focus ing exclusively on attainment of the 60% GHG reduction threshold, while ignoring the cellulosic content of the feedstock used to produce the fuel. In addition , EPA notes that in determining whether or not the fuel produced pursuant to a part icular pathway satisfies the minimum 60 percent GHG reduction threshold for cellulosic biofuel, EPA does take into consideration a number of factors of concern to the commenter, including use of fertilizer and amount of fuels consumed in the production pro cess. The Agency

will continue to evaluate lifecycle emissions for feedstocks and require this reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for cellulosic pathway s. EPA also sought comment on a specified percentage approach, under which fuels produced from fee dstocks listed in Table 1 to § 80.1426 would be eligible to generate cellulosic RI Ns for 85% of their volume, and the remaining 15% would be eligible to generate advanced RI Ns. This percentage was based on data that suggested that the average adjusted cel lulosic content of the predominantly cellulosic feedstocks currentl y listed in Table 1 for cellulosic biofuel pathway s was approximately 85%. Commenters generall y opposed the specified percentage approach, asserting that it would create administrative burden to track two classes of

29 Comment provided by NRDC (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0136).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **37** of **150** RI Ns, that a partial loss of cellulosic RINs could hurt the financial viability of producers, and that there is the possibility of RIN generation errors. 30 EPA has concluded that this approach would significantly increase the complexity

of the program without providing additional environmental benefits. EPA believes the additional precision the method would provide is not justified in light of the administrative and regulatory burden associated with it, and that overall the ce llulosic content threshold approach we are adopting today

provides an appropriate balance of the competing considerations of precision and adopting a workable approach. Therefore, for the reasons described above, EPA is finalizing the content threshold ap proach. b. Feedstocks with Lower Average Cellulosic Content than Feedstocks Currently Listed in Table 1 to §80.1426. In the proposal, EPA also invited comment on how to treat feedstocks that had lower average cellulosic content than the feedstocks currently listed in Table 1 to §80.1426. Some commenters suggested using an approach with multiple thresholds, where fuel ma de from feedstocks that meet the highest cellulosic content threshold would receive 100% cellulosic RI Ns, and fuel made from feedstocks meeting lower thresholds would receive a fixed percentage of cellulosic RINs, with the remaining fuel receiving advanced RI Ns. Some comments

30 Comments provided by National Sorghum Producers (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0065), the Renewable Fuels Association (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0123), Weyerhaeuser (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0140), NexSteppe (EPA HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0153), the Independent Fuel Terminal Operat ors Association (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0165) and Global Renewable Strategies and Consulting, LLC (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0184). Some commenters expressed support for the specified percentage approach. See comments provided by the AFPM/API (EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 04 01 - 0128), Phillips 66 (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0102), Chevron (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0171), and Camco (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0183)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **38** of **150** suggested cellulosic RINs should not be generated for fuels with low cellulosic content. 31 Other commenters stated that the existing regulations in §80.1426(f)(3) were sufficient to handle the allocation of RINs for the cellulosic and non - cellulosic portions of the finished fuel. 32 They noted that these regulations already provide a way to assign RINs for a mixture of fuel t ypes with different D - codes. After evaluating these comments, EPA has concluded that the approach provided b y th e existing regulations in §80.1426(f)(3) to allocating cellulosic and non - cellulosic RI Ns is preferable. This sy stem is already established, and is designed to accurately apportion the finished fuel to account for cellulosic biofuel conversion, potentiall y allowing for a greater proportion of cellulosic RI N generation than would be allowed in establishing a series of thresholds with fixed percentages of cellulosic RIN generation. B. Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analy sis and Cellulosic Determinatio ns for Pathway s Using Biogas as a Feedstock In the March 2010 RFS final rule, EPA established biogas as an advanced fuel ty pe (D code of 5) when derived from landfills, sewage waste treatment plants, and manure digesters. Based on questions from companie s, EPA proposed to: 1) modify the existing biogas pathway to specify that compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) is the fuel and biogas from landfills, waste treatment plants, and waste digesters is the feedstock; 2) allow fuels derive d from landfill biogas to qualify for cellulosic RI

Ns rather than just advanced RI Ns; 3) add a

31 Comments provided by NRDC (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0136). 32 Comments provided by the National Corn Growers Association (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0071), Novozymes North America, Inc. (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0088), and the Rene wable Fuels Association (EPA - HQ - OAR 2012 - 0401 - 0123), the Iowa Corn Grow ers Association (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0131), and Edeniq (EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0159).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **39** of **150** landfill biogas to renewable electricity pathway ; and 4) add a Fischer - Tropsch landfill biogas pathway . Based on comments and new data received, in this rule we are: 1) finalizing the proposed change to make CNG and L NG the fuel and biogas from specified sources the feedstock; 2) expanding the cellulosic pathway s to include biogas from landfills, municipal w astewater treatment facility

digesters, agricultural digesters, and separated MSW digesters; 3) finalizing the proposed change to add an advanced pathway for fuels from waste digester biogas; and 4) expanding the renewable electricit y pathway to include bi ogas from landfills, wastewater treatment facility

digesters , agricultural digesters, separated MSW digesters, and waste digesters. Due to time constraints, we are not finalizing a Fischer - Tropsch landfill biogas pathway at this time. However, we expect t o address this pathway in a future action. Our determinations regarding biogas derived renewable CNG, LNG and electricity are discussed more full y in the following sections. This section discusses:

 Changes Applicable to the Revised CNG/LNG P athway from Biogas  Determination of the Cellulosic Content of Biogenic Waste Derived Biogas o Landfill gas and MSW waste digester biogas as cellulosic o Municipal wastewater treatment facility digester biogas as cellulosic o Agricultural digester biogas as cellulosic o Biogas from Waste Digesters  Consideration of L ifecycle GHG Emissions Associated with Biogas Pathway s o Upstream GHG Anal ys is of Biogas as a Renewable Fuel Feedstock*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **40** of **150** o Flaring Baseline Justification o Lifecycle GHG Anal ys is for Electricity from Biogas  Alternative Biogas Options and Comments The following section, “Regulatory Amendments Related to Biogas” will discuss additional clarifications and changes to the regulations associated with the biogas pathway s. 1. Changes Applicable to the Revised CNG/LNG P athway from Biogas Prior to this rulemaking, an approved fuel pathway in Table 1 to §80.1426(f)(1) allowed biogas from landfills, manure digesters or sewage treatment plants to qualify as an advanced biofuel. We received many requests about what fuel qualifies under this pathway , including what renewable fuel ty

pes qualify

under the term “biogas,” and what are the eligible sources of biogas. In response, EPA proposed to make several changes to the regulations related to biogas. EPA is now characterizing bioga s as a transportation fuel feedstock and is amending the existing biogas pathway

in Table 1 to §80.1426 by changing the renewable fuel ty pe in the pathway from “biogas” to “renewable compressed natural gas (renewable CNG) and renewable liquefied natural ga s (renewable LNG).” EPA is also changing the feedstock ty pe of “landfills, manure digesters or sewage waste treatment plants” to “biogas from landfills, municipal wastewater treatment facility digesters, agricultural digesters, and separated MSW digesters ” for a pathway

producing cellulosic biofuels. Finally , EPA is adding a new advanced biofuel pathway for fuels produced using “biogas from waste digesters” as the feedstock ty pe. In this final rule, we are changing the term “sewage waste treatment plants ” to “municipal wastewater treatment facility digesters” since “sewage waste treatment plants” is not*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **41** of **150** a commonly

used term and to clarify

that the digester is the source of the biogas. We are also defining an “agricultural digester” as an anaerobic digest er that processes predominantly cellulosic materials including animal manure, crop residues, and/or separated yard waste. The existing biogas pathway in Table 1 to §80.1426 refers to “biogas” as the renewable fuel ty pe and “landfills, manure digesters an d sewage waste treatment plants” as the feedstock. Several companies raised questions about whether the term “biogas” in this pathway could refer to the unprocessed or raw gas from the landfills, manure digesters or sewage treatment plants, or processed “biogas” that has been upgraded and could be used directl y for transportation fuel. Companies also asked about use of biogas as an ingredient in the production of transportation fuel, as an energy

source used in the production of transportation fuel, and o ther fuel t ypes that can be produced from the raw biogas either through a phy sical or chemical process (such as CNG, L NG, renewable electricity , renewable diesel, dimethyl ether or naphtha). These companies further inquired whether the various forms of bi ogas discussed above could qualify under this pathway

and therefore be eligible for RIN generation under the RFS program. The term “biogas” in this pathway is used broadly

in the industry

to refer to various raw and processed forms of the biogas from various sources. However, under the existing requirements in § 80.1426(f)(10) and (11), only biogas that is used for transportation fuel can qualify as renewable fuel for RIN generation under the RFS program. EPA recognizes that raw biogas cannot be used directly in the transportation sector and must be physically or chemicall y treated to generate a finished transportation fuel e ligible for RIN generation. Raw biogas can be put through a ph ys ical process in which it is compressed or liquefied to produce CNG or LNG.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **42** of **150** Because these fuels can be used directly for transportation purposes, it seems appropriate to identify these produc ts as “fuels” that are produced using biogas. We are finalizing revisions to the definition of biogas and new definitions for renewable CNG, renewable LNG, and agricultural digester to §80.1401 to read as follows:

Biogas : a mixture of hydrocarbons that is a gas at 60 degrees Fahrenheit and 1 atmosphere of pressure that is produced through the anaerobic digestion of organic matter. Renewable compressed natural gas (“renewable CNG”) means biogas or biogas derived pipeline qualit y gas that is compressed for use as transportation fuel. Renewable liquefied natural gas (“renewable LNG”) means biogas or biogas derived pipeline qualit y gas that goes through the process of liquefaction in which it is cooled below its boiling point. Agricultural digester m eans an anaerobic digester that processes predominantly celluosic materials, including animal manure, crop residues, and/or separated yard waste. These finalized definitions reflect comments we received that supported our changes to the “biogas” pathway as discussed above, namely changing fuel to CNG/LNG and adding a description of the applicable biogas feedstocks. The finalized definitions for CNG/LNG also reflect comments we received suggesting that we clarify whether CNG/LNG that is produced on -*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **43** of **150** site and not sent through a pipeline would fall within the pathway . In order to clarify that CNG/L NG produced on - site and not sent through a pipeline would also qualify , the proposed definitions of renewable CNG and LNG were modified to indicate that either bio gas or pipeline quality gas can be compressed to make renewable CNG and LNG. 2 . Determination of the Cellulosic Content of Biogenic Waste - Derived Biogas In order for fuels produced from biogas as a feedstock to qualify for cellulosic RI

Ns (D code of 3 or D code of 7), the renewable fuel must be derived predominantly from cellulosic materials and must meet a 60% GHG emissions reduction threshold, as describ ed in the following sections. EPA proposed to allow renewable fuel derived from landfill biogas to qualify as cellulosic biofuel and solicited comment on whether biogas from other sources should also be qualified as cellulosic biofuel. Based on new data and comments received during our public review process, EPA has determined that biogas generated b y landfills, municipal wastewater treatment facility

digesters, agricultural digesters, and separated MSW digesters are predominantly

cellulosic in origin, and that biogas derived from waste digesters processing non cellulosic renewable biomass therefore qualifies as an advanced biofuel feedstock. Data supporting these determinations are discussed in more detail in an associated memo to the docket 33 , and the m ain findings are provided forthwith.

33 “Support f

or Classification of Biofuel Produced from Waste Derived Biogas as Cellulosic Biofuel and Summary of Lifecycle Analysis Assumptions and Calculations for Electricity Biofuel Produced from Waste Derived Biogas,” which is available in docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0 401.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **44** of **150** a. Landfill Biogas and MSW Digester Biogas as Cellulosic in Origin . In the June 2013 NPRM, EPA proposed to classify renewable fuels produced from landfill biogas as derived from cellulose, hemicellulose or lignin, a nd therefore eligible to generate cellulosic RINs (D code of 3 and D code of 7). EPA cited a 1989 study that concluded that not only

was the average cellulosic content of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) 34 approximately 90%, but that r oughl y 90% of the methane generated in landfills was derived from the cellulose and hemicellulose 35 portions of the OFMSW as the basis for this proposal. Some commenters argued that MSW landfill gas was not cellulosic because a large portion of the waste d isposed is food waste which contains some non - cellulosic components. We do not believe this affects our determination for several reasons. Our cellulosic content determination is based on an average mixture of MSW components that includes food waste. Si nce the average cellulosic content of the organic fraction of MSW is approximately 90%, EPA believes that organic matter in MSW landfills is predominantly cellulosic in origin. Furthermore, man y of the non - cellulosic components of food waste are oxidized in the early stages of waste decomposition during the collection, handling and transportation and released as CO 2 instead of CH 4 . Therefore, a greater proportion of the biogas produced from anaerobic digestion (and subsequently used as a transportation fu el) comes from the remaining cellulosic components .

34 The study specifies the “volatile solids” of the MSW to be 90% cellulosic. Volatile solids refer to organic compounds of plant or animal origin that have caloric value and are susceptible to bioconversion during anaerobic digestion. 35 Barlaz, M.A., R.K. Ham, and D.M. Schaefer. 1989. Mass - balance analysis of anaerobically decomposed refuse. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 15(6) 1088 - 1102.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **45** of **150** Some commenters stated that only about 27% of MSW landfill gas can be considered to be derived from renewable biomass, and thus, any transportation fuel derived from the bio gas cannot even be considered to be eligible for RIN generation. However, EPA determined in the March 2010 RFS rule that biogas from MSW landfills is derived from renewable biomass, namely separated yard and food wastes, and EPA did not propose to change that finding. Thus, this comm ent is not relevant to the current rulemaking. EPA invited comment and data on the proposed approach to treat landfill biogas as being derived from cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Some commenters argued that landfill biogas should not be considered as cellulosic, 36 others supported considering landfill biogas as cellulosic, 37 and still others requested that EPA expand the proposed determination to include biogas derived from additional sources processing biogenic wastes as cellulosic. 38 Commenters that opposed considering landfill gas as cellulosic pointed to the EPA proposal that relied on a single stud y to justify this approach. This was not, in fact, the case, and EPA had reviewed, discussed and cited numerous studies to support this determination. 39 Moreover, subsequent to the June 2013 proposal, EPA updated its literature review and found additional peer reviewed

36 See “Comment submitted by Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Center for a Competitive Waste Industry”, doc ket number EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0164. 37 See for example, “Comment submitted by Kerry Kelly, Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs, Waste Management (WM)”, docket number EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0112 and “Comment submitted by Stewart T. Leeth, Assistant Vice President, Environmental and Corporate Affairs and Senior Counsel, Smithfield Foods, Inc.” docket number EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0103. 38 See “Comment submitted by Stewart T. Leeth, Assistant Vice President, Environmental and Corporate Affairs and Senior Counsel, and Dennis Treacy, Executive Vice President and Chief Sustainability Officer, Smithfield Foods, Inc.”, dock et number EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0111, and “Comment submitted by Cynthia A. Finley, Director, Regulatory Affairs, National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)”, docket number EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0178. 39 “Support for Cellulosic Determination for Landfill Biogas and Summary of Lifecycle Analysis Assumptions and Calculations for Biofuels Produced from Landfill Biogas,” which has been placed in docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **46** of **150** studies that support our proposed assessment that biogas from landfills is predominantly derived from cellulosic components. The studies considered a broad spectrum of landfills, including studies comparing differences among landfill design, operating practices, regional influence, and ty pical waste loadings throughout the United States over more than two decades. Therefor e, our determination that the biogas generated in landfills is predominantly derived from cellulose and hemicellulose is well supported. 40 Since separated MSW digesters would use the same biogenic materials that are present in landfills, and generate biog as b y the same anaerobic processes, a logical extension of the reasoning and data described above justifies treating the biogas generated by digesters processing separated MSW as cellulosic as well. Therefore, we have included biogas from separated MSW di gesters as a feedstock in cellulosic biofuel pathway Q in Table 1 to §80.1426. b . Municipal W

astewater Treatment Facility Digester Biogas as Cellulosic . For purposes of this rule, the term “municipal wastewater treatment facility digester” means an ana erobic digester that processes the sludge, undissolved solids, and biosolids derived from municipal wastewater whether or not the facility is owned by

a municipality . While there are substantial data characterizing the solids content of municipal wastewat er, there are somewhat less data characterizing the composition of materials entering the digesters

40 Barlaz, M.A., R.K. Ham, and D.M. Schaefer. 1989. Mass - balance analysis of ana erobically decomposed refuse. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 15(6) 1088 - 1102. Mehta, R., Barlaz, M.A., Yazdani, R., Augenstein, D. Bryars, M. and Sinderson, L. 2002, “Refuse Decomposition in the Presence and Absence of Leachate Recirculation,” J. Environ. Eng., 128, 3, 228 - 236 Staley, B. F. and M. A. Barlaz, 2009, Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S. and Implications for Carbon Sequestration and Methane Yield,” J. Environ. Eng. 135, 10, 901 - 909 Additional citations were offered in comment s from Wa ste Management*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **47** of **150** specificall y. The average adjusted cellulosic content of the unprocessed wastewater solids

– including primary

sludge, activated sludge, and biosolids 41

– i s greater than 75%. 42 F or the purposes of calculating the average adjusted cellulosic content of materials entering the wastewater treatment facility digesters, we believe it is appropriate to use the subset of peer reviewed data that anal yz es the activate d sludge and biosolids. The material that enters the digester ty picall y includes the undissolved solids that are recovered from the primary clarification tank and the solids that are allowed to settle out in a secondary clarification tank following aerobic treatment . Therefore, the data for activated sludge and biosolids resembles the material that actuall y enters the digesters at wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, the data related to activated sludge and biosolids is more con sistent and comparable, and therefore provides a more robust estimate of the cellulosic content. The average adjusted cellulosic content was obtained b y dividing the reported cellulosic fraction b y the convertible organic fraction (minus the percent organi c nitrogen, which does not convert to methane) . Based on th e s e data, the activated sludge and biosolids are on average composed of 2 2 % cellulose, 36 % hemicellulose, and 2 1 % lignin. 43 Therefore, we estimate that the material used to generate the biogas through anaerobic digestion from wastewater treatment facilities is,

41 Activated sludge and biosolids typically refer to aerobically treated residuals from the processing of municipal wa stewater solids. 42 Wang, Xue. 2008. Feasibility of Glucose Recovery from Municipal Sewage Sludges as Feedstocks U sing Acid Hydroly sis. Masters Thesis Queen's University, Ontario, Canada. Champagne, P. & Li, C. 2009 "Enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulosic municipal wastewater treatment process residuals as feedstocks for the recovery of simple sugars. Bioresource Technolo gy. Vol 100 pp 5700

– 5706. See memo to the docket: “Support for Classification of Biofuel Produced from Waste Derived Biogas as Cellulosic Biofuel and Summary of Lifecycle Analysis Assumptions and Calculations for Biofuels Produced from Waste Derived Bio gas,” available in docket EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0401. 43 Wang, Xue. 2008. Feasibility of Glucose Recovery from Municipal Sewage Sludges as Feedstocks Using Acid Hydroly sis. Masters Thesis Queen's University, Ontario, Canada. Sun & Cheng. 2002. "Hydrolysis of ligno cellulosic materials for ethanol production: a revie w. Bioresource Technology. Vol 83 pp 1 - 11.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **48** of **150** on average, greater than 75% cellulosic. These data and anal ys es are described in more detail in a memo to the docket. 44

c . Agricultural Digester Gas as Cellulosic . In this rule we are defining “agricultural digesters” to be “anaerobic digesters that process predominantly

cellulosic materials, including animal manure, crop residues, and/or separated yard waste,” and have identified biogas from such digesters as a feedstock for the produc tion of cellulosic biofuel. Based on EPA’s AgSTAR data, we have estimated that animal manure, crop residues and yard wastes represent over 90% of the materials being processed in agricultural digesters. As discussed in section IV.A, EPA has determined th at crop residues and y ard wastes are predominantly

cellulosic. As to animal manure, we received in response to our proposal data indicating that animal manure is predominantl y cellulosic. 45 Based on these data, animal manure is on average composed of 25% cellulose, 21% hemicellulose, and 17% lignin. When divided by the organic fraction (minus the percent organic nitrogen, which does not convert to methane), we estimate that the material used to generate the biogas through anaerobic digestion from agricultural digesters is, on average, greater than 75% cellulosic. 46 Therefore, in this rule we are including biogas from agricultural digesters in the cellulosic biofuel pathway in row Q of Table 1 to §80.1426. Note that digesters that primaril y process food wa stes that cannot be demonstrated

44 Data available for pre - digested biosolids and methods for estimating the aggregate adjusted cellulosic content is presented in the memo to the docket: “Support for Classification of Biofuel Produced from Waste Derived Biogas as Cellulosic Biofuel and Summary of Lifecycle Analysis Assumptions and Calculations for Biofuels Produced from Waste Derived Biogas,” available in docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401. 45 Chen, S., e t. al., 2003, Value Added Chemicals from Animal Manure . Pacific Northw est Laboratory, PNNL

– 14495. December 2003 46 See memo to the docket: “Support for Classification of Biofuel Produced from Waste Derived Biogas as Cellulosic Biofuel and Summary of Lifec ycle Analysis Assumptions and Calculations for Biofuels Produced from Waste Derived Biogas,” available in docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **49** of **150** to be cellulosic in origin would fall in the general waste digester category discussed in the following section, and could be eligible to produce advanced biofuel instead of cellulosic biofuel. d. Biogas from W

aste Digeste rs . The current regulations identify biogas from manure digesters as an advanced biofuel. As described above, we have determined that animal manure is predominantly cellulosic, and therefore have determined that fuel made from biogas derived from agricul tural digesters processing predominantly cellulosic feedstocks (such as animal manure, crop residues, and yard wastes) qualifies for cellulosic biofuel RI Ns. However, additional ty pes of renewable biomass may be processed in anaerobic waste digesters. F or example, non - manure animal wastes and separated food wastes containing predominantl y s tarches and sugars may be processed in waste digesters that produce biogas. Based on our analyses of biogas from other sources of anaerobic decomposition, described i n s ection IV.B. 3, below, we are confident that fuel made from biogas from waste digesters will satisfy the 50% greenhouse gas reduction threshold for advanced biofuels. Therefore, we are including in Row T of Table 1 to §80.1426, an advanced biofuel pathw ay for fuel made from biogas derived from waste digesters. 3. Consideration of L ifecycle GHG Emissions Associated with Biogas Pathway s . Biogas, consisting primarily of methane and carbon dioxide (with trace amounts of other gases), is produced during th e microbial mediated decomposition of organic wastes. In*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **50** of **150** anaerobic environments with available organic material such as landfills, organic conversion to biogas proceeds slowly

over decades producing large amounts of methane. While methane is a potent gre enhouse gas, it is also a combustible gas and valuable feedstock for the production of other fuels. Biogas collection sy stems are currently used at landfills to recover and destroy methane b y flaring or to recover methane for energy generation or fuel pro duction. Further, the natural anaerobic decomposition of organic wastes occurring in landfills can be exploited and optimized in controlled systems (such as waste digesters) to convert organic wastes to biogas for energy generation or fuel production. In this section we will discuss our GHG anal ys is of fuels made from waste derived biogas.

a. Upstream GHG Analysis of Biogas as a Renewable Fuel or Fuel Feedstock . The March 2010 RFS final rule concluded that municipal solid waste has no agricultural or land use change GHG emissions associated with its production. In the NPRM, we proposed to add a new pathway

to Table 1 to §80.1426 that used biogas from landfills to produce renewable electricit y, CNG or LNG as transportation fuels. In the NPRM, we propo sed that no new renewable feedstock production modeling was required, and that no GHG emissions would be attributed to feedstock production, which was consistent with the analy sis we had done for the landfill biogas pathway

included in the March 2010 RFS f inal rule. In addition, as described in more detail below, EPA believes that the GHG emissions assumptions for biogas generated at MSW landfills applies to biogas from municipal wastewater treatment facility digesters , agricultural digesters, separated MS W digesters, and waste digesters.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **51** of **150** We received several comments supporting this approach for landfills, and it is consistent with other Agency

anal ysis conducted for the annual Inventory of US GHG Emissions and Sinks, which assumes that MSW poses no land use or carbon stock changes. 47 However, we also received comment opposing this approach on the grounds that it would incentivize landfilling over other more GHG - beneficial waste disposal methods. Commenters did not provide new data or anal ys is that supported the assertion that allowing biogas - derived fuels from landfills to generate cellulosic rather than advanced RINs or adding new biogas - to - biofuel pathway s would significantly reduce recycling and reuse rates. If waste management methods were impa cted b y use of biogas for transportation fuel, there could be indirect GHG emissions impacts. However, waste management policies are typicall y controlled by

state and local governments, and there are many unique factors that influence these decisions. We have not seen an y evidence or data to suggest that the RFS in general has had or will have a substantial impact on existing waste disposal practices across the U.S., and therefore we believe that there will not be significant GHG impacts associated with the biogas - based pathway s adopted in this rule. In fact, MSW landfilling rates over the past 50 y ears have continuously

decreased even as both recycling rates and biogas collection have increased significantl y. Over the past 10 years as both the per capit a and overall MSW generation rates have decreased slightl y, the percentage of total trash diverted for recycling has increased. 48 Moreover, energy

from waste technologies, such as fuels derived from landfill biogas, can be viewed as a form of waste reuse i tself. Incentivizing the use of biogas for fuel production
47 " Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life - Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks ". Prepared by ICF for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Solid Waste, EPA530 - R - 06 - 004, September 2006. 48 “ Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the United States: Fact and Figures ”. EPA’s Annual Waste Trends Report. 2012 Facts and Figures Facts Sheet; http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw _fs.pdf .*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **52** of **150** establishes biogas recovery as an operating parameter to be activel y optimized

– promoting technology

that reduces fugitive emissions from landfills. Other commenters argued that we should begi n our lifecycle GHG anal ys is at the point of waste generation, in which case our comparison would be to an alternative disposal method like recycling of waste paper, composting, or anaerobic digestion. This approach is not being employed because, as menti oned previously , we do not believe that the biogas pathway s adopted today will have a substantial impact on existing waste disposal methods, and therefore no significant GHG impacts from waste disposal changes are anticipated as a result of this rule. EP A does not believe that allowing landfill biogas to generate cellulosic rather than advanced RINs will incentivize landfilling, and we are therefore not changing our assumptions regarding the upstream analy sis of feedstocks as part of this final rule. How ever, we will reevaluate our lifecycle GHG baseline assumptions in subsequent rulemakings if new evidence and supporting data suggest that changes in the waste management sy stem are occurring as a result of these policies. b. Flaring Baseline Justificati on . Landfills currentl y treat their landfill gas , which is comprised of approximately 50% methane, in one of several way s. Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills are required b y EPA regulations to capture and control their biogas if they are designed to collect at least 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) and 2.5 million cubic meters of waste and emitting at least 50 Mg of non -*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **53** of **150** methane organic compounds per year. 49 These large, regulated landfills represent a small percentage of all landfills by number but are resp onsible for the majorit y of biogas emissions from landfills. To comply with regulations, these landfills must at a minimum combust their biogas in a flare, converting the methane to carbon dioxide, a less potent GHG. They may also use it for other purpos es, including to generate electricity , in which case the electricity produced may displace electricit y from other, higher GHG - emitting sources (such as gas - fired power plants) once it enters the grid. 50 Many smaller, unregulated landfills do not collect th eir biogas, and this methane is “vented” to the atmosphere. Larger regulated landfills do collect the biogas and are assumed to have an average biogas collection efficiency of 75%. 51 In2012, 14,089 Gg of methane was generated at all landfills (regulated and unregulated), of which 4,608 Gg (33%) was collected and combusted in gas - to - energy projects, 4,040 Gg (29%) was collected and flared, and the rest was either uncollected or collected and vented. 52 For the landfill gas - to - electricity pathway , we proposed to use landfills that flare their biogas as providing the baseline GHG emissions for use in comparison to scenarios involving production of electricity

from the landfill biogas. We chose this baseline because these landfills are the ones most likely

to c onvert to gas - to - energy projects, since they already have gas collection sy stems in place and are relativel y larger landfills producing higher quantities of 49 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources: Municipal Solid W aste Landfills, 61 FR 9905, Federal Register Volume 61, Issue 49 (March 12, 1996). 50 Som e facilities also use the biogas directly in boilers and other applications or purify the biogas to create CNG or LNG or inject it directly into natural gas pipelines. 51 Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 2010, Annex 3: Methodological Descriptions for Additional Source or Sink Categories. http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html . As of December 2012, landfills produced 1913 MW of electricity based on figures from LMOP. This electricity would be almost entirely sold for use on the grid. From http://www.epa.gov/lmop/projects - candidates/index.html . Environmental Protection Agency, Landfill Methane Outreach Program. 2010. LFG Energy Project Development Handbook: Chapter 2. Landfill Gas Modeling . http://epa.gov/lmop/publications - tools/handbook.html. 52 National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data. 2011. Chapter 8: Waste. http://epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US - GHG - Inventory - 2013 - Chapter - 8 - Waste.pdf*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **54** of **150** biogas. Small unregulated landfills might be unable to generate enough biogas to justify the expen se of collecting it for conversion to renewable fuels. However, if such small landfills were to capture and use their biogas in transportation fuels, there would be a significantly greater reduction in GHG emissions than would be occasioned by the shift from a flaring landfill to a gas - to - energy

project, since a flaring s ys tem represents a significant improvement in GHG emissions over a landfill that simply vents its methane. Therefore, if the shift from a flaring landfill to a gas - to - energy project resu lts in a 50% reduction in GHG emissions, the shift of a venting landfill to a gas - to - energy project would result in GHG reductions substantially larger than 50%. Since landfills that currentl y have gas - to - energy projects in place at one point either repla ced flaring with a gas - to - energy project or installed a gas - to - energy project as an alternative to the minimal compliance route of flaring, we proposed to treat the emissions from these landfills compared to the same flaring baseline. We show lifecycle re sults calculated using alternative baselines and discuss our choice of baseline in more depth in a memo to the docket. 53 We received comments in support of our flaring baseline approach. We did not receive an y comments that justified revising this baselin e for the pathway in Table 1, therefore EPA is finalizing flaring as our baseline as proposed. We received comment on the use of alternative baselines for specific projects that we discuss below. Other commenters addressed the case of a landfill that i s alread y generating renewable electricit y from landfill gas. The commenters stated that with the increasing availability of plug in hy brid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and electric vehicles (EVs), it is likely that at least some of the electricit y that is c urrently being generated by

these landfills is going to charge these 53 “Support for Classification of Biofuel Produced from Waste Derived Biogas as Cellulosic Biofuel and Summary of Lifecycle Analysis Assumptions and Calculations for Electricity Biofuel Produced from Waste Derived Biogas.” Available in docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **55** of **150** vehicles. The commenter argued that if the landfill now signs contracts with these users, there will be no change in GHG emissions, and fuel from this landfill biogas will not achieve a 60% GHG reduction as required for cellulosic biofuels. Although EPA considered the possibility of differentiating between existing and new biogas projects, 54 we believe that such an approach would inappropriatel y punish “earl y actors” that have previousl y made the decision to install gas - to - energy

equipment, either to replace flaring or as an alternative to installing flares. The fact that these facilities made the upgrade to gas - to - energy production prior to the availability of an RFS incentive to do so should not disqualify them. These facilities are already leading performers, and their fuel should be credited with the GHG reductions occasioned by the move away from the flaring alternative even if that move happened in the past. This approach is consis tent with how we have treated the earl y implementation of advanced technologies for all biofuels producers in the past. We also believe that it is appropriate to use a flaring baseline when considering emissions related to biogas production from municip al wastewater treatment facility digesters, agricultural digesters, separated MSW digesters, and waste digesters. Similar to landfills, biogas from these sources could be vented, flared or used for beneficial purposes. According to the American Biogas Co uncil website, of the 1,500 municipal wastewater treatment facility digesters that produce biogas, about 250 use the biogas; for the other 1,250, the biogas is flared. For agricultural digesters the alternative to beneficial use of the biogas is ty pically that the methane would have been emitted. We believe a similar situation exists with respect to s eparated MSW , and therefore we use that same flaring baseline for both of these s ys tems. In fact for most waste 54 “Support for Classification of Biofuel Produced from Waste Derived Biogas as Cellulosic Biofuel and Summary of Lifecycle Analysis Assumptions and Calculations for Electricity Biofuel Produced from Waste Derived Biogas,” which is available in docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **56** of **150** digesters, the alternative is that the waste would have gone to a landfill resulting in the same baseline. Furthermore, wastewater treatment facilities that don’t use digester biogas for process energy , fuel production, or electrical generation ty pically flare the unused biogas. Assuming that the biogas is flared generally provides a conservative baseline. If sources that are using flaring will achieve a 60% GHG reduction when converting to electricity production, sources that are venting their methane will certainly do so as well.

c. Lifecycle GHG Analysis for Electricity from Biogas . The previous section discussed the baseline EPA has selected for use in comparison to the biogas pathway s under consideration . 55 This section discusses the lifecycle GHG emissions anal ys es of the pathway s adopted today , which are then compared to the baseline to determine if the requisite GHG reductions are achieved. As part of the proposed rule, EPA prepared a proposed assessment of the lifecycle GHG emissions of renewable electricity produced from landfill biogas. In doing so, we examined two main factors. The first involved determining b y how much emissions at a landfill employing flaring would change upon installation of a gas - to - energy project. For this calculation, we used emission factors from the GREET model. 56 The second involved calculation of the decrease in

55 The discuss ion here is limited to the new biogas to electricity pathway adopted today. Lifecycle greenhouse gas emission reductions required for the new cellulosic CNG and LNG pathways are 60% as compared to a 2005 fossil fuel baseline (50% reductions were previously required for CNG and LNG for the advanced pathway). The CNG and LNG lifecycle assessment for the 60% reduction requirement is discussed in the memo placed in the docket: “Support for Classification of Biofuel Produced from Waste Derived Biogas as Cellulos ic Biofuel and Summary of Lifecycle Analysis Assumptions and Calculations for Biofuels Produced from Waste Derived Biogas,” available in docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401. 56 Argonne National Laboratory (2011) Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation Model (GREET), Version 1 2011, http://greet.es.anl.gov/.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **57** of **150** GHG emissions caused by powering the gas blowers already in use with biogas - derived electricit y produced on - site rather than grid electricity upon installation of a gas - to - energy projec t at the landfill. This calculation used data from the EPA L andfill Methane Outreach Project (LMOP). 57 For this analysis, we calculated how much electricity could be generated and how much could be delivered off - site to the consumer including consideratio n of on - site parasitic losses and on - site use. We used values from LMOP to provide estimates of the relative shares of different t ypes of engines or turbines, the electricity generation efficiency, parasitic losses, energy use in collecting and preparing the biogas, and a value from the U.S. Energy Information Agency to estimate distribution losses. Values used are discussed in more detail in a memo to the docket. 58 We calculated GHG emissions in two way s, per mmBtu electricit y and per mmBtu fuel equival ent which accounted for the drivetrain efficiency of electric vehicles. In both cases we found that renewable electricity produced from landfill gas meets the 60% GHG emission reduction threshold required b y the CAA, and thus qualifies as a cellulosic bio fuel. Compared with the gasoline that it would replace, these projects would be accompanied by an 87% reduction in GHG emissions when normalized per mmBtu electricity. Accounting for the improved efficiency

of EV drivetrains increases the GHG emissions r eductions to 96%. We did not receive an y comment on our lifecycle calculations and are therefore finalizing our determination that renewable electricit y produced onsite from landfill gas meets the 60%

57 EPA LMOP Data. 58 “Support for Classification of Biofuel Produced from Waste Derived Biogas as Cellulosic Biofuel and Summary of Lifecycle Analysis Assumptions and Calculations fo r Electricity Biofuel Produced from Waste Derived Biogas.” Available in docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **58** of **150** reduction in GHG emissions required b y the CAA. Thi s determination also applies to a pathway where the electricity

is generated off

- site. The main differences are removal of the credit associated with using biogas electricity in on - site blowers, and adding emissions associated with scrubbing the gas to pi peline quality , shipping it via pipeline, and removing it from the pipeline to make electricity . Removing the credit associated with use of biogas - derived electricity for onsite blowers still results in a 75% reduction in GHG emissions when normalized per mmBtu electricit y, and the emissions associated with other aspects of a pathway involving off - site electricit y generation (e.g., scrubbing the gas to pipeline quality , shipping it via pipeline, removing it to make electricity) are not expected to change the result significantly . We believe that GHG emissions related to electricity produced with biogas from municipal wastewater treatment facility digesters, agricultural digesters, separated MSW digesters, and waste digesters would be similar to those for landfill biogas production. The anal ys is for landfill biogas to electricit y considered two main components: an increase in emissions due to converting from flaring to electricity generation and a credit associated with reduced grid electricity

purchased to run blowers. The change in emissions due to converting from flaring to electricit y generation that we assumed for landfill biogas can be considered the same for other sources of biogas. In all cases the emissions are based on the properties of the bio gas itself, and its combustion products, which are independent of the biogas source. For other biogas sources there may be less need for purchased grid electricity to run blowers since other biogas sources are generally less distributed than gas collectio n at landfills. However, even if the credit associated with the reduction in purchased grid electricity for blowers is not considered for municipal wastewater treatment facility digesters, agricultural digesters, separated MSW*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **59** of **150** digesters and waste digester s, compared with the gasoline baseline GHG emissions of 98 kg CO 2 - eq/mmBtu, these projects would still be accompanied by a 75% reduction in GHG emissions when normalized per mmBtu electricity. The calculated reduction would be even greater if we accounted for the improved efficiency of EV drivetrains. Therefore, we have determined that pathways involving electricity production from biogas derived from these other sources also meet the 60% lifecycle GHG reduction threshold and can be qualified as cellulosi c biofuel (assuming all other definitional and regulatory requirements are satisfied). It is important to note that RI

Ns may only be generated for electricity from biogas that can be tracked to use in the transportation sector, such as b y an electric vehi cle. 4. Alternative Biogas Options and Comments

a. Alternative Baseline Approaches . We received comments in support of our flaring baseline approach. However, we also received several comments arguing for alternative approaches. Several commenters wanted EPA to allow parties to use a non - flaring baseline where it can be shown that the l andfill providing biogas is not required to have a flare or other methane controls. For the basis of our biogas pathway s in Table 1, EPA is not changing the baseline comparison of flaring for the reasons stated above, that on average it is the baseline la ndfill condition that would be replaced. In addition, EPA had determined that the biogas to energy pathway s evaluated are all calculated to achieve at least a 60% reduction in GHG emissions required b y the CAA when a change from landfill flaring is assume d. Assuming venting instead of flaring as a baseline landfill condition*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **60** of **150** would improve the calculated benefits of the projects, but would not change the applicable RFS GHG threshold determination. Accordingl y, there is no purpose served b y these comments for purposes of today ’s rule. b. Additional Comments on Lifecycle Analysis for Renewable Electricity . In addition to the comments discussed above, we also received comment suggesting that we include electricit y from biomass sources such as woody biomass as a pathway in Table 1 to §80.1426. However, evaluation of the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with generating electricit y from wood y biomass or other biomass sources would involve substantially different considerations from our anal ys is of el ectricity production from biogas sources, and is beyond the scope of this rule. Therefore EPA is not finalizing an electricity pathway from other ty

pes of biomass at this time. We also received comments on adding pathway s for biogas to transportation fue ls other than CNG/L NG and electricity . These other fuel ty pes included dimethyl ether (DME) and hydrogen (H). However, assessing emissions associated with these production processes is also beyond the scope of this rule. We received comment seeking clarification of whether electricit y from landfill biogas or other approved biogas sources that was used in trains would qualify for RIN generation. EPA has determined that electricity used in trains is not a “ transportation fuel” as defined in the Clean Air Act. Electricity

from RFS - approved biogas sources that is used in trains does not “replace or reduce the use of fossil fuel present in transportation fuel”, and therefore does not meet the statutory definition of a “renewable fuel” eligible for RI N generation in the RFS program.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **61** of **150** Commenters also asked whether electricity from landfill biogas or other approved biogas sources that was used to compress natural gas would be eligible for RIN generation, if the natural gas was used for transportation purposes . EPA has determined that electricity used to compress natural gas does not qualify for RIN generation, since the electricit y will not reduce the amount of fossil fuel present in the natural gas, which is the transportation fuel in this situation. C . Regulatory

Amendments Related to Biogas Prior to this rule making, an approved fuel pathway in Table 1 to §80.1426 allowed biogas from landfills, manure digesters or sewage waste treatment plants to qualify as an advanced biofuel. We have received ques tions related to some of the details of this pathway that are also relevant to the biogas - related pathway s approved today . The questions include the following: 1) what company along the production chain of biogas from generation to end user is considered the producer that qualifies to register under this pathway and generate RINs, and 2) what are the contract requirements to track the biogas from gene ration to end use. We proposed revising and adding new documentation , registration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements at locations along the production chain from biogas generation to finished transportation fuel use. W e also proposed to specify which company along the production chain is considered the “producer” and eligible to generate RINs under the RFS program. In the following sections, we will detail the changes being finalized. 1. Changes Applicable to Renewable Electricit y from Biogas Sources*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **62** of **150** In the NPRM, EPA requested comment on a number of potential changes intended to clarify the process for generating RINs for renewable electricity. We received a number of comments on these proposed changes, but have decided that in general the existing re gulations are sufficient for present purposes and onl y minor clarifications are warranted at this time. To the extent that these modifications do not resolve all questions, EPA’s intent is to address them through a combination of guidance documents and future rulemaking.

a. Registration and RIN Generation Requirements . Section 80.1426 paragraphs (f)(10) and (11) describe the requirements for generating RI Ns for renewable electricity and biogas which are either introduced into a dedicated renewable distribution sy stem ( § 80.1426(f)(10)) or introduced into a commercial distribution sy stem ( § 80.1426(f)(11)). EPA requested comment on the provisions and suggestions for alternative requirements. Several commenters provided background information related to actual renewable electricit y generation and transportation use to aid in the development of more detailed provisions. This information included specific detail on how individual companies are currently using biogas to generate electricit y for transportati on purposes, and what these companies are doing to compl y with state regulatory programs. These comments illustrated a number of significant challenges faced by parties wishing to generate biogas electricity RI Ns under the RFS program.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **63** of **150** Most commenters agreed that the electricity distribution sy stem is complex, and that detailed and clear regulatory requirements specific to renewable electricity are needed. EPA agrees that the electricity generation s ys tem is complex, and EPA intends to take more time to evaluate the options and their implications. We believe that the regulatory changes made in this final rulemaking to § 80.1426 paragraphs (f)(10) and (f)(11) should help address some of those challenges. EPA and stakeholders will benefit from additional experience in implementing the current provisions before adopting significant modifications. b. Distribution and Tracking Requirements . Tracking and verifying the production and use of the renewable electricit y are of particular conce rn. Each state regulates electricit y individually and so there is a wide variet y of sy stems and requirements that must be accounted for in establishing a robust sy stem for electricit y accounting. In addition, several states have renewable portfolio stand ards and “renewable electricit y 59 credit” (REC) programs. Further, most states do not allow private electricit y generators to sell electricit y directly to consumers. Therefore we cannot rely solely on written contracts for tracking of renewable electricity to transportation use. An alternative tracking and verification sy stem must be established. The alternative adopted in this final rule is described in the next section. It was suggested b y commenters that EPA leverage existing state renewable elect ricit y portfolio programs to track and validate RINs generated for RFS - qualified renewable electricit y. 59 When referring to various state “renewable electricity” programs in this preamble, we are using that term as defined in the state programs, and do not i ntend to suggest that the electricity in question necessarily satisfies the RFS regulatory definition of “renewable electricity.”*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **64** of **150** These programs rel y on defined environmental attributes which can be owned and transferred independentl y of the actual electricit y. Ownership of these environmental attributes allows regulated parties to demonstrate compliance with the renewable electricity portfolio programs. Given the variet y of renewable electricit y programs managed b y a multitude of states, this does not seem workable for the RFS p rogram . In addition, EPA does not intend for the RFS to interfere with existing state programs. Therefore we have made the decision to match generation to use, and not require the purchase or definition of related environmental attributes. This does not preclude RIN generators from participating in state renewable electricity programs or from using that information to support their RFS registration and reporting documentation. 2. Regulatory Changes Applicable to A ll Biogas Related Pathway s As discussed above, we have had man y inquiries related to the “biogas” pathway, specificall y regarding contract requirements for tracking the biogas through the distribution sy stem to end use, and regarding what compan y along the production chain is consid ered the “producer” and eligible to generate RINs under the RFS program. In this rulemaking, we have revised the documentation requirements slightly , to better track the biogas as it moves into and out of the distribution sy stem and to document the final u se as a transportation fuel. Provisions related to registration, reporting and recordkeeping were revised as well. These provisions allow for the use of signed affidavits, when written contracts are not available, to prove the use or sale of renewable electricit y and renewable CNG/ LNG for transportation purposes. It is assumed that these affidavits would be signed b y fleet managers or vehicle operators, verifying the use of the renewable transportation fuel. These affidavits would then be matched, b y the registered fuel*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **65** of **150** producer, to the delivery

or sale of an equivalent amount of qualifying renewable electricit y or renewable CNG/LNG. While it is impossible to track the specific molecules or electrons, it must be theoretically

feasible that the fuel pr oduced can reach the vehicle using it. Examples of connected grid sy stems include, but are not limited to, commercial natural gas distribution sy stems, dedicated private fuel distribution sy stems, or transmission grids as defined by the North American Ele ctrical Reliability Corporation (NERC) regions. These amended requirements are applicable to all pathway s related to biogas.

We proposed that the “producer” of renewable CNG/LNG be the compan y that compresses or liquefies the gas and dis tributes the CNG/L NG for transportation fuel, and for renewable electricit y, we proposed that the “producer” would be the company that distributes the electricit y for use as transportation fuel. Numerous commenters indicated that limiting RI N generation t o the CNG/LNG or electricit y distributor would revoke current RI N generation ability from those who have invested significant resources in developing biogas projects . Some commenters also stated that the compan y first injecting the pipeline quality biogas into the grid would be intimately

familiar with the responsibilities in tracking distribution, and should be eligible to act as the RIN generator. Given the complexities of the situation involving the production, transportation and use of biogas - derived fuels, we are not finalizing the definition of “producer” for renewable CNG/L NG and renewable electricit y. EPA believes a more appropriate approach at this time is to examine registrations on a case b y case basis in the short term, and to learn from this experience prior to issuing an y final rule addressing the subject.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **66** of **150** The processing and distribution train from raw biogas to final transportation fuel use can be complex, and may

include many

companies and processing steps from the point when the raw bioga s is withdrawn from its source (such as landfills, waste digesters, wastewater treatment plants), to where it is processed, converted into biofuel and distributed to consumers. In some cases the fuel may

be cleaned at a biogas scrubbing facility to pipeli ne quality

specifications for distribution, and then withdrawn from the commercial pipeline to be processed further at another production facilit y into renewable CNG/LNG or renewable electricity. The compan y registering to generate RINs is responsible for providing all the required information and supporting documentation in their registration, and for satisfying reporting and recordkeeping requirements to track and verify

the movement of gas from point of extraction of the raw biogas from its original source, through all the processing steps and distribution steps in between, to the last step where the actual fuel is used for transportation purposes. In the engineering review report required for registration, the producer must include documentation that the professional engineer performed site visits at each biogas production facility covered b y the producer’s registration that is located prior to the point of injection into a common carrier pipeline, or in the case of on - site distribution, prior to the po int of distribution for transportation usage. The third - part y engineer must also review and verify all related supporting documents such as design documents, calculations, regulatory

permits, contracts and affidavits between facilities that track the raw biogas from the point of withdrawal from its source, the various injection/withdraw points into the distribution pipeline, the various production facilities, and the final step for use as transportation fuel. For purposes of biogas - related pathway s, EPA d oes not interpret its regulations as specifying where the producer must lie on the value chain . EPA will evaluate the situation on a case b y case basis through the registration process; an y company that is registered*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **67** of **150** to generate RINs must be in a position to oversee the entire process and provide all necessary documentation . These requirements will help ensure that the compan y registering to generate RI Ns will onl y generate RI

Ns for fuel that is full y compliant with all regulatory requirements. The reg istration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements are in §80.1426(f), 80.1450, and 80.1454 in this rulemaking. The structure of §80.1426(f) paragraphs (10) and (11) was changed to more clearl y address RIN generation requirements for electricity and CNG/ LNG derived from biogas. Paragraph (10) lists requirements for fuels that are not introduced into a commercial distribution system; subparagraph (i) addresses electricity requirements and subparagraph (ii) addresses CNG/LNG requirements. Subparagraph (ii i) is an additional requirement for producers co - firing a combination of fuels to generate electricity . Similarly , paragraph (11) lists requirements for fuels that are introduced into a commercial distribution sy stem, with the same organization as paragrap h (10). Comments to the NPRM raised the concern that contracts are not alway s feasible between the parties producing and using the fuel. In some cases, smart metering is available to provide very

detailed documentation of fuel distribution and use. Ther efore EPA has added signed affidavits and an option for other EPA - approved documentation to demonstrate the transfer of qualifying fuel use d for transportation. EPA will provide guidance on other documentation that may

be considered acceptable. The changes regarding the documentation requirements for distribution and use of the biogas , electricit y, and CNG/LNG is located in §80.1426 and §80.1454.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **68** of **150** D . Clarification of the Definition of “Crop Residue” and Clarification of Feedstocks that EPA Conside rs Crop Residues 1. Clarification of the Definition of “Crop Residue” In today ’s FRM, EPA is amending “crop residue” in the RFS regulations to more clearl y describe the characteristics of products that should fall within the definition. 60 The final amendments are identical to those proposed. EPA proposed in the NPRM to include this amendment to provide more detailed guidance regarding the ty pes of feedstocks that EPA considers crop residues. In our preexisting regulations, “crop residue” “is the biomass left over from the harvesting or processing of planted crops from existing agricultural land and any biomass removed from existing agricultural land that facilitates crop management (including biomass removed from such lands in relation to invasive species control or fire management), whether or not the biomass includes an y portion of a crop or crop plant.” 61 In the NPRM, we proposed to amend the definition to specify that biomass is considered crop residue only

if the use of that biomass for the production of renewable fuel has no significant impact on demand for the feedstock crop, products produced from that feedstock crop, and all substitutes for the crop and its products including the residue, nor an y other impact that would result in a significant increase in direct or indirect GHG emissions . We also noted that crop residue must come from crop production or processing for some other primary purpose

60 See § 80.1401. 61 Ibid.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **69** of **150** (e.g., refined sugar, corn starch ethanol) or be removed to facilitate crop management , such that the crop residue is not the reason the crop was planted. The residue must also come from existing agricultural land, the exact definition of which is laid out in our current regulations that define “renewable biomass.” 62 We stated further that the residue should generall y not have a significant market in its own right, to the extent that removing it from that market to produce biofuels instead will result in increased GHG emissions. We sought comment on this revision to the crop residue defi nition, specifically inviting comments regarding what ought to constitute a “significant” increase or decrease in GHG emissions in the context of this definition. We received significant comment supporting and opposing this change. At least one commente r who supported the change also stated that EPA should amend the definition of crop residues to more explicitly exclude non - cellulosic components of crop residues. 63 We address the question of the cellulosic content of feedstocks in s ection IV.A . of this rulemaking. In formation available to EPA indicates that crop residue as a class more than satisfies the 75% cellulosic content threshold we have adopted today to identify feedstocks which are eligible to generate cellulosic biofuel RI Ns for the e ntire produced volume. 64 For this reason, we are not modifying the definition as suggested by the commenter.

62 Ibid. 63 Comments submitted by AFPM/API (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0128). 64 See Memorandum to the Docket, “Cellulosic Content of Various Feedstocks

– 2014 Update.” Available in docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **70** of **150** Those opposed to the proposed change were uniformly clear that they

supported the crop residue pathway

in general. 65 Opposition stemmed from con cerns that our proposed clarification would be overl y limiting and would exclude feedstocks that rightfull y ought to be considered crop residues under the RFS. Several commenters stated that very few products have no market value and that most will find s ome sort of beneficial use. These commenters expressed concern over our statement in the preamble of the NPRM that, in order to meet the definition of crop residue, a crop product must generall y not have a significant market in its own right. In their es timation, the fact that most crop products have a non - zero market value might cause them to be disqualified from the crop residue pathway . 66 EPA acknowledges that man y crop residues have some non - zero market value. We also acknowledge that most could find some sort of beneficial use, albeit a low value use in many cases. This in turn may

have some non - zero impact on the total revenue a farmer receives for a crop. However, we do not believe that a crop product must necessarily

be completely

useless in ord er to qualify under the crop residue pathway . Rather, as indicated in our amendment to the definition of crop residue and our statements in the NPRM preamble, the use of the crop product to produce renewable fuel should not significantl y impact demand for the feedstock crop and associated products and should not lead to a significant increase in GHG emissions. It is our judgment that a crop product need not be completel y devoid of value to meet these criteria , though there should be a notable difference i n the value of the primary

product and the value of the residue .

65 See, for example, comments submitted by the Renewable Fuels Association, (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0123), the National Corn Growers Association (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0065), and Grow th Energy (EPA - HQ - OAR 2012 - 0401 - 0173). 66 Here as w ell, several commenters expressed similar opinions. See, for example, comments submitted by the Renewable Fuels Association, (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0123).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **71** of **150** Other commenters stated that the use of a crop residue as biofuel feedstock gives it value and that this use itself may increase the total value of the primary crop. 67 Several commenters expressed concern that this approach may create a chilling effect on investment in crop residue based fuels. 68 EPA acknowledges the possibility that, if used as biofuel feedstock in large enough quantities, demand for a crop product may begin to affect the value of the primary crop. EPA noted in the NPRM that , if significant f acts change over time, it is possible that EPA would modify its assessment regarding whether particular crop products meet the definition of crop residue. However, if EPA were to rev ise our assumptions or analy sis concerning the qualification of certain crop products as crop residue, this change would be done after public notice and an opportunity for comment. Therefore, industry would have adequate opportunit y to provide data to EPA prior to any potential chang es to our interpretation regarding an y of the feedstocks listed in Table IV.D.3 - 1 . It is important to note that even if a particular feedstock evolved to the point where it had a significant market as a commodity and EPA were required to revisit the lifecycle GHG emissions analy sis , this feedstock would most likely still meet the definition of renewable biomass. EPA would therefore be able to establish a new pathway for the feedstock upon completion of a lifecycle GHG anal ys is , even if the feedstock no longer fit under the crop residue pathway . In sum, we do not believe that the possibility of EPA reconsidering past L CA determinations , including those for crop residue pathway s , should create any undue uncertaint y for the private sector, nor that the possibility of reconsideration will materially

affect production of cellulosic renewable fuels under pathway s allowing for the use of crop residue as a feedstock.

67 See comments submitted b y the National Corn Growers Association (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0065) and the Iowa Corn Growers Association (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0124), among others. 68 See, for example, comments submitted by the American Coalition for Ethanol (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0147).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **72** of **150** Most commenters who opposed the change also argued that the key consideration ought to be whether the residue meets the 60 percent GHG reduction threshold for establishing a pathway to generate RINs with a D code of 3 and/or a D code of 7 and that, as long as a crop product meets this threshold, it ought to be considered a crop residue. 69 EPA believes that the term crop residue should be defined in a manner that ensures that materials within the definition satisfy the 60 percent GHG reduction threshold. This is one of the reasons why EPA is finalizing the proposed amen ded definition. Materials that do not meet the definition of crop residue, and do not qualify

as other feedstocks listed in Table 1, may be independently

evaluated to determine if they satisfy the 60 percent GHG reduction threshold, or other thresholds ap plicable to other ty pes of biofuels. Parties questioning whether an agricultural product meets the current definition of crop residue must determine if the product is “left over.” Our proposed and final definitional change is intended to clarify what thi s means. However, the current regulations do not provide stakeholders with much guidance regarding what EPA considers to be the meaning of “left over . ” Th e current definition has created significant confusion and uncertainty among stakeholders. Our goal in clarifying the definition of crop residue is to more transparentl y define the criteria that must be met for a feedstock to qualify

under the existing crop residue pathway . Stakeholders who are considering whether or not to use a given feedstock will b e able to consider these criteria, rather than rel yi ng on the current regulatory

text that does not specify the meaning of “left over . ”

69 See, for example, comments submitted by Novozymes North America, Inc. (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0088) and Grow th Energy (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0173).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **73** of **150** Those opposed to the amendment to the definition of crop residue also generall y argued that the word “significant” was used vaguel y in our proposed clarification, and that this might create undue hurdles for producers seeking to use low - GHG crop products under the crop residue pathway . 70 As stated previously , EPA sought comment on the proposed change and specificall y regar ding what ought to constitute a “significant” change in GHG emissions. Commenters who opposed th e proposed clarification declined to offer alternative interpretations of the terms “left over” and “significant . ” However , several of these commenters did st ate that EPA’s proposal did not sufficiently

describe what might constitute a “significant increase , ” a “significant market , ” or a “significant impact . ” 71 It is true that EPA did not provide specific criteria for meeting these significance thresholds. Ho wever, in our NPRM discussion concerning corn kernel fiber, we discuss ed this question contextually . In that discussion, we described why we believe that corn kernel fiber would not cause a significant increase in demand for corn, wh y we believe that corn kernel fiber does not have a significant market in its own right, and why its removal from distillers’ grains to produce biofuel will not have a significant impact on direct or indirect GHG emissions. Stakeholders who wish to better understand how to eva luate whether other feedstocks meet the definition of crop residue should consult that discussion and the comparable discussion in s ection IV . D. 2 of this preamble .

70 See, for example, comments submitted by the National Biodiesel Board (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0166) and Novozym es North America Inc. (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0088). 71 See, for example, comments submitted by the National Biodiesel Board (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0166) and Novozymes North America Inc. (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0088).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **74** of **150** Few commenters offered opinions regarding what might constitute a “significant market” for a crop product. However, comments submitted by the Iogen Corporation did provide one potential framework for understanding when a crop product might be considered to have a significant m arket . In their comments, Iogen stated that “ EPA should not cons ider potential for significant crop shifting unless the farmer revenue per acre for raw unprocessed crop residue (i.e., before fees for collection, baling, stacking, transport, etc.) is more than 15 percent of the grain crop revenue per acre. We believe the volatility of the grain crop revenues is much larger than 15 percent of the grain price, and that the incremental revenue will not affect crop planting decisions. ” 72 EPA has not utilized this methodology to identify which crop products we consider crop residues for the purposes of this final rulemaking. We acknowledge that this ty pe of methodology

could potentially be useful for evaluating whether future feedstocks meet our definition of crop residue, including non - grain crops . While we have not performed sufficient anal ys is to determine whether it is appropriate to adopt such an approach today , we may reconsider it in the future . Regardless , we do believe that it provides a useful consideration for stakeholders. In Table IV.D.3 - 1 of this preamble , EPA identifies several crop product s that we consider crop residues. In addition, we have provided greater transparency to stakeholders regarding the criteria for qualifying as a crop residue under the RFS in this preamble and in the clarified definition of crop residue. As a general principle, if a product meets the regulatory definition of crop residue as described above and is similar to a feedstock that we identify as a crop residue in 72 Comments submitted by Iogen Corporation (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0135).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **75** of **150** Table IV.D.3 - 1 , then it is li kely that EPA would consider it as qualifying as a crop res idue. Conversel y, if it is not clear that a product meets the regulatory definition of crop residue as described above, or if the feedstock is not similar to any of the feedstocks identified in Ta ble IV .D.3 - 1 , then there is greater uncertainty that it will qualify . 73 EPA acknowledges that it may not alway s be straightforward for a stakeholder to determine for themselves whether a crop product is likely to qualify

under the crop residue pathway , even with the guidance provided in this preamble and in the revised definition. In light of this , and to promote accurate identification of feedstocks that do and do not qualify as crop residues, EPA is implementing additional registration, recordkeepin g, and reporting requirements for producers intending to use crop residue as a feedstock. These additional requirements will help to ensure that producers of renewable fuel do not inadvertently attempt to generate RINs under a crop residue pathway utilizi ng a feedstock that EPA does not consider to be a crop residue. See s ection IV. D. 4 of this final rulemaking for more details on these requirements. 2. Consideration of Corn Kernel Fiber as a Crop Residue We also proposed in the NPRM that corn kernel fiber be considered a crop residue. Corn kernel fiber has not been specificall y mentioned as a type of crop residue in any previous RFS rulemaking. However, EPA has received several requests to consider corn kernel fiber to be a crop residue. Because it had not been considered a crop residue previously, EPA conducted an

73 It is important to keep in mind that not qualifying under the crop residue pathway does not in any way exclude fuel produced from a given feedstock from qualifying to generate RINs with a D code of 3 or a D code of 7 more generally. It only means that a new pathway would need to be established, were EPA to find that the fuel produced from that feedstock meets the 60 percent threshold.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **76** of **150** evaluation that assessed whether corn kernel fiber should be considered a crop residue. This anal ys is focus es on whether corn kernel fiber c an be considered “left over from the harvesting or processing of planted crops” , whether it has “no significant impacts on demand for the feedstock crop, products produced from that crop, or an y substitutes for the crop and its products” no r “ an y other imp act that would result in a significant increase in direct or indirect GHG emissions . ” We requested comment on our proposed anal ys is. We received significant comment supporting our anal ys is and our proposal that corn kernel fiber should be considered a crop residue. 74 We did not receive an y comments opposing our anal ys is or our conclusions. Accordingl y, we have decided based on the assumptions, facts and anal ys is described below that corn kernel fiber should be considered crop residue as proposed. Should relevant facts described in our anal ys is change, a re - evaluation of the issue may be warranted. Our anal ys is of corn kern el fiber can serve as one of man y possible illustrative example s of how crop products can be evaluated for qualification as crop residues , in addition to our previous considerations of other feedstocks that we consider to be crop residue , such as corn stov er . 75

a. Analysis of Corn Kernel Fiber as a Crop Residue . The amended definition of crop residue requires us to consider an y potential “ significant impact on demand for the feedstock crop, products produced from that feedstock crop, and all substitutes fo r the crop and its products, and an y other impact that would result in a significant

74 Several commenters expressed extremely similar op inions on this point. But see, for example, comments submitted by the Renewable Fuels Association, (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0123), the National Corn Growers Association (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0065), and Grow th Energy (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0173). 75 For our ana ly sis of corn stover in the context of the crop residue pathway, see 75 FR 14670, March 26, 2010.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **77** of **150** increase in direct or indirect GHG emissions.” To determine whether the use of corn kernel fiber to produce renewable fuel would lead to increased direct or indirect GHG emissions stemming from an y of these sources, EPA conducted a detailed assessment of the two major potential sources of emissions from this feedstock, namel y effects on feed markets and effects on demand for corn. In our anal yt ical judgment, any impacts o n corn, corn products, or substitutes for corn or corn products would come from impacts on the feed market for dried distillers grains (DDG) or from some other impact on overall demand for corn. We did not identify an y other potential sources of significant increased GHG emissions in our proposed anal ys is, and no commenter suggested that an y such source might exist. Therefore, we are confident that the anal ys is we have conducted below adequatel y addresses all aspects of the definition of crop residue, exc epting questions regarding the source of the biomass, which will be evaluated in the context of each individual producer registration pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1450. P roducers acquire corn kernel fiber for ethanol feedstock as a part of the whole corn feedstock stream entering into a corn starch ethanol plant. This fiber stream may then be accessed for ethanol production in one of two general way s. One option is for p roducers to extract it from matter that would otherwise be converted to DDG during the dry mill corn ethanol production process . This step can be performed either before or after that matter has been separated from the corn starch ethanol. In either case, the corn fiber is processed into ethanol via a separate stream from corn starch ethanol production. A s econd option is for producers to access and convert the fiber in situ along with the corn starch that is converted to ethanol . In order to meet the definition of a crop residue, the s ource of corn kernel fiber must be incidental to some other primary

purpose. An ethanol producer utilizing corn kernel fiber as a feedstock*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **78** of **150** cannot purchase whole corn for the primary purpose of generating corn fiber ethanol and still qualify their feedsto ck as crop residue. Consequently , this anal ysis relied significantly on the assessment of corn starch ethanol derived DDG that was conducted for the March 2010 RFS final rule, adjusting the anal ys is to account for the extraction of fiber from this produ ct. 76 The anal ys is also drew substantially on the available scientific literature on low fiber DDG (LF - DDG), as well as the expertise of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Potential producers also submitted important data that helped EPA evaluate the lif

ecycle GHG emissions of corn kernel fiber . It is important to note that all animal feed products must be approved b y the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can be sold in the United States. EPA’s anal ys is makes observations and draws conclusions about the characteristics and likel y uses of LF - DDG based on the available literature regarding LF - DDG that has been fed to livestock in research settings. However, at this time the FDA has not approved LF - DDG for use in commercial animal feed. Nothing in EPA’s anal ys is should be construe d as an official federal government position regarding the approval or disapproval of LF - DDG as an animal feed. Only FDA is authorized to make that determination. Our anal ys is proceeds from the assumption that producers of LF - DDG will be able to gain FDA approval for these feed products and that they will do so before commencing production and sale of this feed product. If however FDA does not approve LF - DDG as an animal feed, there will be implications for the LCA of corn kernel fiber, and EPA will revi sit its determination.

76 See 75 FR 14670, March 26, 2010*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **79** of **150** EPA found that extracting the fiber from corn matter used to produce standard DDG would not have a significant effect on feed markets. Processors who extract the fiber from corn produce a feed product known as LF - DDG, as opposed t o standard DDG, which retains the fiber. The scientific literature on LF - DDG animal nutrition has found that this product has at least equal, and perhaps even slightly superior, nutritional value for swine and poultry compared to standard DDG. 77 This mean s that, even though the phy sical volume of the LF - DDG produced by ethanol plants using corn kernel fiber extraction technology will be somewhat smaller than the volume of DDG produced by plants not extracting corn kernel fiber, the nutritional content of L F - DDG for swine and poultry will be equivalent to or greater than DDG. Conversel y, LF - DD G is an inferior feed for cattle compared to standard DDG, since ruminants benefit from ingesting corn fiber in DDG. 78 Therefore, EPA expects swine and poultry produce rs to absorb the supply of LF - DDG, while the cattle and dairy industry will continue to consume standard DDG. With this dynamic in place, fiber extraction from DDG should not significantly

affect feed markets, since there will be no reduction in the overa ll supply of DDG in terms of nutritional content nor will there be an y impact on aggregate demand for other animal feed sources. If enough corn ethanol producers adopt fiber extraction technology , LF - DDG could saturate swine and poultry demand and spill o ver into dairy and cattle feed markets. If a

77 See, e.g. , Kim, E.J., C.M. Parsons, R. Srinivasan, and V. Singh. 2010. Nutritional composition, nitrogen corrected true metabolizable energy, and amino acid digestibilities of new corn distillers dried grains with solubles produced by new fractionation processes. Poultry Science 89, p. 44, available on the docket for this rulemaking as EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0002. See also additional studies cited within Kim et al 2010. 78 See Shurson, G.C. 2006. The Value of High -Protein Distillers Coproducts in Swine Feeds . Distillers Grains Quarterly , First Quarter, p. 22, available on the docket for this rulemaking as EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0 401 - 0003.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **80** of **150** situation arises where LF - DDG begin to replace standard DDG in dairy and/or cattle markets, this could lead to an increase in aggregate feed demand, most likely in the form of increased demand for fiber supplem ents in dairy and cattle feed. This theoreticall y could cause an increase in GHG emissions. However, we do not expect this to occur. If swine and poultry demand for LF - DDG becomes saturated, demand for standard DDG in the cattle and dairy industries sho uld create sufficient market incentives for the remaining corn starch ethanol producers to decide against adopting corn fiber ethanol production. EPA believes this will prevent a situation where there is insufficient supply of standard DDG in the cattle and dairy industries. However, as noted above, if significant facts change, it may be appropriate for EPA to reexamine corn kernel fiber as a crop residue in the future. EPA’s anal ys is indicates that producing ethanol from corn kernel fiber is unlikely t o increase overall demand for corn , in addition to having no significant impact on feed markets. It is our judgment, based on the anal ys is above, that the primary purpose of procuring whole corn for processing in a corn starch ethanol plant is to produce corn starch ethanol , since more than 90 percent of the ethanol produced will be from the starch . The plant would most likely procure that same quantity

of whole corn regardless of whether they were converting the fiber into ethanol or sending it to some o ther end use. The diversion of corn kernel fiber from the DDG stream to an ethanol production stream will not materially affect the value of the feed products produced b y a corn starch ethanol plant per bushel of corn processed . Because of this, there wi ll be no significant incentive for the plant that is producing ethanol from corn kernel fiber to procure more or less corn than they would if they

were selling the fiber as part of their DDG product. We can find no evidence to support a claim that production of ethanol from corn kernel*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **81** of **150** fiber has an y significant impact on demand for corn, products produced from corn , or the substitutes for corn and its products. Further, we find that if corn kernel fiber is not used to produce ethanol, it will be left over from the corn starch ethanol production process, because its presence or absence in DDG products do es not materially impact the value of those DDGs or the overall market for DDGs and feed products . Finally , we were unable to identify an y other potentially

significant impacts associated with utilizing corn kernel fiber to produce renewable fuel that might lead t o significant GHG emissions, nor were any such impacts identified during public notice and comment. Based on th e s e factors , w e find that utilizing corn kernel fiber to produce renewable fuel would have no significant impacts on GHG emissions. These findings support a determination that corn kernel fiber meets the definition of a crop residue. Therefore , corn kernel fiber may

b e used as a feedstock in those pathway s in Table 1 to § 80.1426 that specify crop residue as a feedstock. b. Treatment of Corn Starch that Adheres to Corn Kernel Fiber After Separation from DDG . EPA sought comment on whether the definition of crop residue should be amended to explicitly exclude the corn starch component, since some corn starch may still adhere to the corn kernel after separation. Additionally , EPA invited comment on how RINs shou ld be allocated for fuel derived from corn fiber, including comment on the sufficiency of current RFS regulations with regards to the assignment of RINs to batches of corn starch ethanol and corn kernel fiber ethanol produced via consolidated bioprocessing and whether producers have the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **82** of **150** technological capability

to adequatel y demonstrate the volume of fuel produced under each pathway . Commenters confirmed that some starch may adhere to the unconverted fiber, even after most of the starch has been processed into ethanol. 79 However, man y of those same commenters also supported considering this starch as “de minimis” under our current regulations. 80 Those current regulations state that “producers and importers may disregard an y incidental, de minimis feedstock contaminants that are impractical to remove and are related to customary feedstock production and transport.” 81 We received several comments noting that corn kernels undergo a rigorous mechanical process designed to separate the starch from the rest of the corn kernel before processing that starch into ethanol. Despite this process, some starch adheres to the fibrous portions of the kernel and, in a standard corn starch ethanol plant, ends up in the DDG. 82 Commenters argued that this adhering starch is i ndeed impractical to remove and is present onl y in small quantities. 83 In the preamble of the NPRM for this rulemaking, EPA stated that starch might compose up to 20 percent of the separated mass used to produce corn kernel fiber ethanol via a separate str eam, based on data from 1998. Through the public comment process, we received more recent and fine - grained data that better represents current methods of starch - fiber separation. Based on this newer data, we believe the actual amount of starch that

79 See, for example, comments submitted by Edeniq, Inc. (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0159). 80 Numerous commenters supported this position. See, for example, comments submitted by Edeniq, Inc. (EPA HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0159), the American Coalition for Ethan ol (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0147), and Grow th Energy (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0173). 81 See specifically § 80.1426 (f) (1). 82 See comments submitted by Quad County Corn Processors (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0063), by Edeniq, Inc. (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0159), and the American Coalition for Ethanol (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0147). 83 See, for example, comments submitted by Edeniq, Inc. (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0159).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **83** of **150** adher es to the fiber after separation from the rest of the corn kernel is t ypically less than 5 percent of the total mass of the separated corn kernel fiber feedstock. 84 In light of the small quantity of starch involved, ty

pically less than 5 percent of the m ass, and the impracticability

of separating the starch which adheres to the fiber, we believe that this starch component can appropriatel y be considered a de minimis contaminant . Li ke all plant fibers, the fibrous portion of corn kernel fiber is composed of nearly 100 percent cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Taken together with the small quantity of adhering corn starch, corn kernel fiber is clearly

above the 75 percent threshold we have established in today ’s rulemaking for determining when a feedst ock is predominantly cellulosic, and this is also consistent with our finding, discussed in s ection IV.A . of the preamble, that crop residue as a class has at least 75 percent cellulosic content . To be clear, this de minimis determination only applies to starch adhering to corn kernel fiber that is being processed into ethanol separately from corn starch ethanol. Processes that convert corn starch and corn kernel fiber to ethanol in situ (as is described in detail in the next section) may not consider any portion of the corn starch to be de minimis. Furthermore, if any producer processing corn kernel fiber separately from corn starch fails to use best practices 85 to separate adhering corn starch , in an attempt to boost production of cellulosic biofuel from processing corn kernel fiber or for any other reason , the adhering starch will not be considered a de minimis contaminant, and the entire batch of resulting fuel will not be considered derived from crop residue and will not qualify as cellulosic biofuel. Since processing of the corn kernel would be incomplete, the feedstock would not be considered left over from
84 Ibid. 85 Data submitted by commenters indicate that the rigorous mechanical process employed to separate corn ke rnel fiber and corn starch will typically allow less than 5% of residual starch to adhere to the fiber after separation. See comments submitted by Quad County Corn Processors (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0063), by Edeniq, Inc. (EPA HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0159), and the American Coalition for Ethanol (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0147).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **84** of **150** processing and would not meet the definition of crop residue in § 80.1401. While the batch of resulting fuel might be eligible to generate renew able biofuel RINs (D code of 6) for the starch derived component of the fuel, RINs could onl y be generated for the fuel derived from non starch components of such feedstock to the extent that such volumes were grandfathered under 80.1403(c) or (d).Based on the existing reporting requirements listed in § 80.1451(b)(1)(ii) 86 , EPA is alread y requiring the data necessary to identify whether the cellulosic RI Ns that a fuel producer is generating is disproportionate to the amount of corn kernel fiber processed at a facility . EPA collects feedstock volumes, fuel volumes, and other data reported to determine that RI Ns and volumes are generated in accordance with the regulations.

c. Processing Corn Kernel Fiber. Corn kernel fiber may

be used for biofuel production in multiple way s. As detailed above in s ection IV.A. 4 , renewable fuel can be produced pursuant to biochemical conversion processes that simultaneously hydrol yz e and/or ferment cellulosic and non - cellulosic material into fermentable sugars and/ or fuel. Corn kernel fiber as a crop residue may be converted into qualifying renewable fuel via biochemical methods in one of two way s. 87 First, it may be converted via a consolidated bioprocessing method that converts cellulosic and non - cellulosic corn material i nto sugars and/or fuel products simultaneously . Second, corn kernel fiber may be converted to sugar and/or fuel via a separate stream from the corn starch sugar and fuel conversion streams.

86 Required information includes: quantity of RINs generated, volume of fuel produced, feedstock type, and exact feedstock quantity. 87 Corn kernel fiber may also be converted to fuel via thermoche mical methods. See section IV.A.4 for details on the requirements for renewable fuel production via thermochemical pathways.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **85** of **150** The first method may

include simultaneous hydroly sis of the star ch and cellulosic components of the corn kernel into sugars, followed by simultaneous conversion of those sugars into fuel products. In other cases, the cellulosic and non - cellulosic portions of the corn kernel may be hydrol yz ed separately but fermented t ogether in a single vessel. In either case, EPA considers this process technology to be a method of simultaneous conversion. We discuss the requirements for using a simultaneous conversion process in s ection IV.A. 4 of this preamble . Alternativel y, produ cers may hydrolyze and ferment the cellulosic and non - cellulosic portions of the corn kernel via separate streams. This may be accomplished in at least one of two way s. A producer might separate the starch from the corn kernel fiber before the hydrol ys is step, sending each set of material through separate h ydrolysis, fermentation, and distillation streams. A producer might also perform a conventional corn starch ethanol fermentation process, yi elding corn starch ethanol, and then hydroly ze and ferment the residual solids (which ty pically become DDG at the end of the process) a second time, using enz ym es designed to convert cellulosic material to sugars. If a producer uses a process that hydrol yz es and ferments the corn kernel fiber separatel y from the co rn starch, either in a parallel but separate process or in a sequential process that extracts the fiber from the residual solids after corn starch ethanol fermentation , then the producer is not considered to be performing simultaneous conversion, and all o f the resulting corn kernel fiber - derived fuel may appropriatel y be considered derived from predominantly cellulosic biomass. As discussed above, some starch may adhere to the fiber after the separation step or may

remain in the residual solids output of a conventional corn starch ethanol fermentation process. However, we believe this small amount of corn st arch contaminant fits*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **86** of **150** under EPA’s de minimis feedstock contaminant provision in the existing regulations, and should be disregarded . 88 This is the case even if a producer were to add enz ym es which might convert starch adhering to the corn kernel fiber to e thanol. 3. Id entification of Feedstocks EPA Considers Crop Residues To provide additional guidance on the definition of crop residue , EPA is identifying several feedstocks that we consider to be crop residues. In the NPRM, we provided a table that included feedstocks which we have previousl y identified as crop residues in public documents and which we believed fit the definition of crop residue. 89 That table included corn stover, corn kernel fiber (see s ection IV. D. 2 above for further discussion) , citrus residue, rice straw, sugarcane bagasse, and wheat straw. All of these feedstocks were identified as crop residues in the preamble of the March 2010 RFS final rulemaking , with the exception of corn kernel fiber . For example, EPA anal yzed the agric ultural sector GHG emissions of using corn stover for biofuels in the final March 2010 RFS final rulemaking and found that fuel produced from this feedstock met the 60% GHG reduction threshold for cellulosic biofuels. 90 Since the direct and indirect impact s of several other crop product s, including citrus residue, rice straw, and wheat straw, were expected to be similar to those of corn stover, EPA also applied the land use change impacts associated with corn stover to those product s as well. Based on that analy sis, EPA found that fuels produced from these product s also met the 60% reduction threshold. EPA further determined that fuels produced from materials left over after the processing of a crop into a

88 See specifically § 80.1426 (f) (1). 89 See Table IV.D.3 - 1

– Feedstocks That May Qualify as Crop Residue, 78 FR, 36056 - 57, June 14 , 2013. 90 See EPA - HQ - OAR - 2005 - 0161 - 3173.2, EPA - HQ - OAR - 2005 - 0161 - 3173.3, and EPA - HQ - OAR - 2005 - 0161 - 3173.4, under the Lifecycle Results Docket for the March 2010 RFS Final Rulemaking.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **87** of **150** useable resource had land use impacts sufficiently similar to agricultural residues to also meet the 60% threshold. EPA specificall y cited bagasse left over from sugarcane processing as an example of this ty

pe of crop residue. EPA sought comment on whether these feedstocks should be considered crop re sidues, whether these feedstocks would have direct and indirect GHG impacts similar to corn stover, and whether additional feedstocks should also be considered crop residues. We received numerous comments that supported considering all of these feedstocks as crop residues. 91 We did not receive an y comments that opposed considering any of the feedstocks identified in the NPRM as crop residues, nor did we receive an y comments that disputed our reasons for considering them crop residues. In addition, sever al commenters identified other crop products which are extremely similar to those that we proposed to consider crop residues. Commenters noted that we have identified sugarcane bagasse as a crop residue in multiple rulemakings, including the March 2010 RF S final rule and the NPRM of this rule, but have not previousl y considered sweet sorghum bagasse. 92 T he processes for separating bagasse from simple sugars is very similar between sugarcane and sweet sorghum and the market and other potential GHG impacts of utilizing that bagasse to produce renewable fuel are also considered to be similar. Therefore we are today identifying both as feedstocks which we consider crop residues.

91 Several commenters expressed extremely similar opinions on this point. But see, for example, comments submitted by the Renewable Fuels Association, (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0123), the National Corn Growers Association (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0065), and Grow th Energy (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0173). 92 See comments submitted by NexSteppe Inc. (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0153). See also 75 FR 14692, March 26, 2010 and 78 FR 36042, June 14, 2013.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **88** of **150** Commenters noted that we identified corn stover as a crop residue in the NPRM, but have not previously

considered grain sorghum stover. 93 Since the composition, methods of production, methods of collection , market potential, and implications for other relevant markets for these two t ypes of stover are nearl y identical, these two sto vers would reasonabl y seem to have similar GHG impact profiles. Commenters also noted that, in the NPRM, we did not list grain fibers other than corn kernel fiber. To the extent that other grain kernel fibers are extracted and used for biofuel feedstoc k in the same manner as we lay out for corn kernel fiber in s ection IV.D.2 above (i.e., during the processing of grain feedstock into ethanol), these products would reasonabl y s eem to have similar GHG impact profiles to corn kernel fiber. 94 To the extent that these grain fibers are obtained in the same manner that we have laid out for corn kernel fiber, their alternative fate would also be distillers grains. The impacts of fiber on the digestion of ruminants, swine, and poultry are extremel y similar, regardless of what grain that fiber came from, because all grain fiber is virtually

100 percent cellulosic. Therefore, we are confident that diverting that fiber to a fuel production stream would have similarly insignificant market and other GHG impacts to tho se of corn kernel fiber, and we similarl y consider them to be crop residues under those circumstances. Commenters also pointed out that we identified wheat straw and rice straw as crop residues in the NPRM but did not identify other grain straws (e.g., oat straw, barley straw) as
93 See comments submitted by the National Sorghum Producers (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0065), Iogen Corporation (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0135), NexSteppe Inc. (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0153). 94 See comments submitted by Novozymes North America Inc. (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0088), ICM (EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0114), NexSteppe Inc. (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0153), Growth Energy (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0173),*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **89** of **150** residues, even though these products would reasonably seem to have similar GHG impact profiles to wheat straw and rice straw. 95 EPA has determined that these straws do indeed have similar GHG impacts to those of wheat straw and rice straw. All of them have similarly insignificant markets, insignificant effects on demand for the crop from which they are derived, and insignificant impacts on other crop products and substitutes. Further they are processed into renewable fuel in ne arl y i dentical way s. Therefore, we consider all of the grain straws listed in Table IV.D.3 - 1 below to be crop residues. Finally , while we proposed to identify “ citrus residue” as a crop residue in the NPRM, several stakeholders have suggested that this l abel is rather vague. T here are several different ty pes of b yp roducts or residues from citrus processing (e.g., peels, pulp, seeds) , each with a unique chemical composition and degree of alternative usefulness. EPA does not currentl y have sufficient information to determine that all by products of citrus processing meet the requirements of the crop residue pathway . Producers wishing to utilize citrus processing by products as a feedsto ck under the crop residue pathway will need to provide EPA with further information about the materials they

are utilizing, per the registration requirements detailed in s ection IV .D.4.a of this FRM. In Table IV.D.3 - 1 we are identifying several crop produ cts that EPA considers to be crop residues . 96 This table is meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive, of the ty pes of crop products that EPA considers to be crop residues. It is included here to provide guidance and greater clarity to stakeholders; it sho uld not be considered a definitive list. It will not appear in our

95 See comments submitted by Iogen Corporation (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0135), 96 Our analysis of corn kernel fiber as a crop residu e is discussed in section IV.D.2 of this preamble.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **90** of **150** regulations, though EPA may publish a table similar to Table IV.D.3 - 1 on our website for the convenience and education of stakeholders. We acknowledge that there may be other crop product s which were not brought to our attention during this rulemaking process and which are not included in Table IV.D.3 - 1, but which may meet the definition of crop residue as we are clarifying it in today ’s final rulemaking. Further details regarding how EPA may evaluate these crop products can be found in s ection IV.D.1 and s ection IV.D.2 of this final rulemaking. Additionally , stakeholders may also want to consult s ection IV.D.4 of this final rulemaking, which describes new RRR requirements for producers who wish to use crop residue as a feedstock for renewable fuel production.

**Table IV.**  **D. 3**  **- 1**  **– Feedstocks That EPA Considers Crop Residues** 

Sugarcane and Sweet Sorghum Bagasse Kernel Fiber from Barley, Corn, Oats, Rice, Ry e, Grain Sorghum, and Wheat

Stover from Corn and Grain Sorghum Straw from Barley , Oats, Rice, Ry e, Soy beans, and Wheat

4. Registration, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements Associated with Using Crop Residue as a Feedstock Under current regulations, producers registering to generate RINs using the crop residue pathway are not required to specify exactly which crop product s they intend to use. This could potentially

lead to a situation where a producer inadvertently generate s invalid RI

Ns b y producing a batch of fuel from a crop product that does not meet the crop residue definition . In*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **91** of **150** order to ensure that producers onl y utilize crop product s which EPA considers to be crop residues and thereby generate valid RI Ns when using a crop residue pathway , we are implementing additional RRR requirements for producers using crop residue as feedstock under any approved pathway .

a. Registration Requirements for Producers Utilizing Crop Residue as a Feedstock . EPA acknowledges that the regulatory definition adopted today may be difficult to interpret in some respects. On the other hand, EPA believes that the proposed revised definition appropriatel y describes crop products that should qualify as crop resid ues. In order to reduce unc ertaint y and confusion in the application of the revised definition, we are implementing a new registration requirement for those seeking to use crop residues as a feedstock. Any entity registering to use crop residue as a feedstock must, as a part of the ir registration package submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1450, include a list of all crop materials they intend to use that they consider to be crop residue, and a justification for their belief that the listed crop materials meet the regulatory

def inition of crop residue. These r egulatory amendments appear in 40 CFR 80.1450. If the crop product is one that EPA has previously identified as meeting the regulatory definition of crop residue, then referencing the relevant EPA document will likely be sufficient justification . However, if a crop product is not one that EPA has previously identified as a crop residue , then EPA intends to evaluate whether th at feedstock meets the regulatory definition prior to accepting the facility ’s registration . If the feedstock is very similar to one that EPA has*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **92** of **150** alread y evaluated, this may be a relativel y brief process. See the discussion in s ection IV.D. 3 above for so me examples of how this comparison could be performed by EPA. However, if the feedstock markedl y differ s from those we have evaluated previousl y, as corn kernel fiber did before this final rulemaking, then a more extensive anal ys is , even including lifecyc le GHG anal ys is, may

be required. Each feedstock presents its own sets of questions. Stakeholders may wish to consult our analysis of corn kernel fiber in s ection IV. D. 2 of this rulemaking for an example of such an analysis. If EPA decides that further anal ys is of a particular feedstock is needed, the registrant will have the option o f removing the crop product from its registration package, in order to allow the remainder of the package to be processed more quickly and to allow the producer to be registered and begin production using other feedstocks pending EPA’s anal ys is. If EPA later determines that the crop product in question meets the regulatory definition of crop residue, then the registrant could update their registration to include that feedstock. However, in order to avoid delay , stakeholders may

wish to consult EPA’s website and rulemakings regarding the definition of crop residue before submitting their registration. Should a stakeholder discover that a feedstock they

are planning to utilize has not been previously identified b y EPA as a crop residue, it may

be beneficial and expedient for them to consult EPA before submitting their registration. We are not finalizing an y requirement that stakeholders take this affirmative step before submitting their registration. However, we believe that taking this step may lead to a more streamlined pr ocess for entities who wish to utilize a new crop product as feedstock in pathway s providing for use of crop residue.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **93** of **150** Entities who are already registered to generate renewable fuel using crop residue as a feedstock will not be required to immediately upd ate their registration to conform to these new requirements. However, when these entities perform periodic updates to their registration pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1450(d)(3), they will be required to include the information described in these new requirements at that time . b. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Producers Utilizing Crop Residue as a Feedstock

. In addition to the registration requirements outlined above, EPA is also requiring that an y entity registered to generate RINs using crop resi due as a feedstock keep records of the quantities of each specific crop product they utilize, and that they

report the quantities used to generate qualifying renewable fuel over the past three months in each quarterl y report to EPA. 97 This requirement is somewhat different from the feedstock reporting requirement associated with reporting RIN generation in EMTS. In EMTS, the RI N generator is only

required to report the total quantity

of crop residue used to produce the batch of fuel for which RINs are generated. These new recordkeeping and quarterly reporting requirements go a step further by requiring specific accounting of the exa ct quantities of individual crop products used by the producer over a three - month period. The exact re gulatory requirements of this new provision are detailed in the amendments to 40 CFR 80.1451 and 80.1454 below. E . Amendments to Various RFS Compliance Related Provisions

97 At the time of this rulemaking, RIN generators would report this information via quarterly report number RFS0801. See http://www.epa.gov/ otaq/fuels/reporting/rfs.htm for further details.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **94** of **150** We are finalizing a number of changes to the RFS regulations related to compliance, except for the definition of “Responsible Corporate Officer” (RCO) , which was proposed but is not being finalized. 1. Changes to Definitions “Responsible Corporate Officer” : EPA is not finalizing the definition of “responsible corporate officer” at this time. The existing RFS regulations at §§ 80.1416, 80.1451 and 80.1454, and EPA guidance and instructions regarding registration and reporting, frequentl y refer to the responsibilities o f the “owner or a responsible corporate officer.” However, the term “responsible corporate officer” had not been defined in the RFS regulations. Several commenters requested that EPA review its existing policy on acceptable position titles and what regi stration updates have to be approved by an RCO . These comments were directed at EPA’s administrative procedures and registration sy stem, rather than the regulatory responsibilities of the RCO with regard to compliance with RFS standards. EPA needs to eva luate the registration process, which may include potential modifications to the registration sy stem, for opportunities to minimize burden on RCOs and to better differentiate an RCO’s roles with respect to program compliance versus administrative roles in our registration sy stem. Based on these comments and the potential for registration sy stem modifications, EPA is not finalizing*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **95** of **150** the RCO definition at this time . Regulated parties should continue to follow existing regulations and registration procedures . “Small Refinery” : Section 211(o)(9)(A) of the Clean Air Act provides an exemption from RFS requirements through 2010 for “small refineries,” defined as refineries having an average aggregate dail y crude oil throughput “ for a calendar year ” that doe s not exceed 75,000 barrels. It also provides for possible extensions of this exemption, through individual petitions to EPA under CAA 211(o)(9)(B). In EPA’s March 26, 2010 regulations implementing the EISA amendments to the RFS program we specified in the regulatory definition of “small refinery” that the 75,000 bpd threshold determination should be calculated based on information from calendar ye ar 2006. At the beginning of the program, having a single ye ar in which to make this determination simplifie d the calculations and helped to ensure that all refineries were treated similarly. However, we no longer believe that it is appropriate that refineries satisfying the 75,000 bpd threshold in 2006 should be eligible for extensions to their small refinery RFS exemption if they no longer meet the 75,000 bpd threshold. Allowing such facilities to qualify for an exemption extension, while not allowing similarl y sized facilities that have not grown since 2006 to qualify for an exemption, does not appear fair, nor does it further the objectives of the statute to target relief to onl y truly small facilities. Therefore, we proposed modifying the definition of small refinery so that the crude throughput threshold of 75,000 bpd must apply in 2006 and in all subsequ ent y ears. We also proposed specifying in § 80.1441(e)(2)(iii) that in order to qualify for an extension of its small refinery exemption, a refinery

must meet the definition of “small*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **96** of **150** refinery” in § 80.1401 for all full calendar ye ars between 2006 and the d ate of submission of the petition for an extension of the exemption. We proposed that that these changes would not affect an y existing exemption extensions under CAA 211(o)(9)(B); rather, they would apply

at such time as any

approved exemption extensio n expires and the refinery at issue seeks a further exemption extension. No further extension would be permitted unless the revised crude oil throughput specifications were satisfied. We received two comments on our proposed small refinery revisions, bo th supporting EPA’s proposed change. After further consideration of this matter , we believe that the proposal could unfairl y disqualify a refinery from eligibility for small refinery relief based onl y on a single ye ar’s production since 2006. We do not believe i t would be appropriate to treat two refineries whose recent operating conditions were equivalent differentl y if one refinery exceeded 75,000 bpd in a single ye ar as much as 8 years ago. Considering this concern and the intent in our proposal to treat similarly sized facilities the same, we are modifying the final rule to require that throughput be no greater than 75,000 barrels in the most recent full calendar ye ar prior to an application for hardship. We will also clarify that a qualifying sm all refinery can’t be projected to exceed the threshold in the year or y ears for which it is seeking an exemption. Production that exceeds the average aggregate 75,000 barrel per date limitation during an approved exemption period would invalidate the exe mption. With these modifications , we believe we will better address our primary

concern from proposal of treating refineries with similar performance the s ame. We believe that these changes reasonabl y i mplement the statutory definition of “small*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **97** of **150** refinery ,” which indicates that the 75,000 barrel aggregate daily crude oil throughput is for “a calendar year,” but does not specify which calendar year should be the focus of inquiry . The final rule places the focus on the time period immediatel y prior to and during the desired exemption period, which we believe is most appropriate given the objectives of the provision. 2. Provisions for Small Blenders of Renewable Fuels The RFS regulations at § 80.1440 allow renewable fuel blenders who handle and blend less than 125,000 gallons of renewable fuel per ye ar, and who are not obligated parties or exporters, to delegate their RI N - related responsibilities to the party directly upstream from them who supplied the renewable fuel for blending. EPA has rece ived feedback from several parties to the effect that the 125,000 threshold is too low and is a lower threshold than what industry considers “small.” EPA requested input on what a more appropriate gallon threshold should be . EPA received two comments supporting an increase in the threshold and one comment suggesting it remain at the current amount of 125,000 gallons. Of the two commenters suggesting the amount should be increased, one suggested an increased amount of 250,000 gallons , and the other sug gested an increased amount of 3 to 4 million gallons. Based on comments received from stakeholders previously and based on comments received on the proposed rule, EPA believes it is reasonable to increase the threshold for small blenders of renewable fuel s ( those that are not obligated parties or exporters) to help relieve burden from managing RI

Ns . However, EPA is cautious not to increase the threshold beyond what is reasonable and beyond an amount that would be considered “small.” EPA generall y agrees with*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **98** of **150** one of the commenter’s suggested amount of 250,000 gallons. Doubling the threshold from 125,000 gallons to 250,000 gallons will provide additional relief to the smallest renewable fuel blenders. Therefore, EPA is adjusting the gallon thresho ld for small blenders of renewable fuels ( and who are not obligated parties or exporters) that want to delegate their RI N - related responsibilities to the party directly upstream from them who supplied the renewable fuel for blending. The threshold is bein g changed from 125,000 gallons to 250,000 gallons in today ’s final rule. 3. Changes to § 80.1450

– Registration Requirements EPA is adding a new paragraph (h) to § 80.1450 that describes the circumstances under which EPA may

deactivate a compan y registration and an administrative process to initiate a deactivation that provides any company the opportunity

to respond to and/or timely submit the required information. EPA originall y proposed deactivating a compan y registration where there had been no activity in EMTS for one calendar year (January 1 through December 31). Commenters noted that there may

be valid reasons for a break in use of EMTS within a calendar y ear. To avoid this scenario, EPA is modifying th is provision to specify that i f a compan y has reported no activity in EMTS under § 80.1452 for twenty - four calendar months , then EPA will initiate this administrative process . In addition, for this particular ci rcumstance, if a party responds within 14 day s of EPA notif

i cation of an intent to d e activate registration with a letter stating that they wish to remain as a current registered part y, EPA will not deactivate their registration. If there is*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **99** of **150** no response re ceived, or the response does not indicate a desire to for the entity to remain activel y registered, then EPA may deactivate the registration. EPA may also deactivate a company registration if a part y fails to comply with any registration requirement of § 80.1450, if the part y fails to submit any required compliance report under § 80.1451, if the party fails to meet the requirements related to EMTS under § 80.1452, or if the part y fails to meet the requirements related to attest engagements under § 80.1454. EPA will provide written notice to the owner or responsible corporate officer (RCO) that it intends to deactivate the compan y’s registration and would allow the compan y fourteen (14) days from the date of the letter’s issuance to correct the deficiencies n oted or explain why there is no need for corrective action. If there is no satisfactory response received, then EPA may deactivate the registration. Reactivation will be possible following the submission or updating of all required information and report s. 4. Changes to § 80.1452

– EPA Moderated Transaction Sy stem (EMTS) Requirements

– Alternative Reporting Method for Sell and Bu y Transactions for Assigned RI Ns EPA proposed an alternative method for recording in EMTS the date of title transfer between the bu ye r and seller. Specificall y, the parties involved in a trade of renewable fuel with assigned RINs would agree beforehand on using either the current methodology for det ermi ning the date of transfer or the parties would utilize a unique identifier and onl y the buy er would enter into EMTS the title transfer date.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **100** of **150** EPA is not finaliz ing this proposal at this time due to impacts on other sy stems functionality

and processes. EPA may choose to pursue this proposal in a later rulemaking when we have sufficient resources to modify impacted sy stems . 5 . Changes to Facility ’s Baseline Volume to Allow “Nameplate Capacit y” for Facilities not Claiming Exemption from the 20% GHG Re duction Threshold As a requirement of registration under the RFS program, each renewable fuel producer and foreign ethanol producer must establish and provide documents to support its facility ’s baseline volume as defined in § 80.1401. This is either the permitted capacity or, if permitted capacity cannot be determined, the actual peak capacity of a specific renewable fuel production facility on a calendar y ear basis. After the promulgation of the March 26, 2010 RFS rule, we have received man y requests fr om companies asking EPA to allow them to use their nameplate or “design” capacity

to establish their facility ’s baseline volume due to either the facility being exempt from obtaining a permit, and thus not able to determine their permitted capacity , or the facility not starting operations, or not being operational for a full calendar year to produce actual production records to establish actual peak capacities. Because the regulations currentl y only allow a facility ’s baseline volume to be established by a limit stated in a permit or actual production records for at least one calendar ye ar, facilities that had neither a permit or sufficient production records had difficultly registering under the RFS program. EPA prop o sed allowing use of nameplate capacity for registration, where permitted capacity or actual peak capacity could not be determined. There were no adverse comments regarding this proposal . T herefore, in this rulemaking we are finalizing our proposal to all ow a facility to use its “nameplate*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **101** of **150** capacity” to establish its facility ’s baseline volume for the purposes of registration . The “nameplate capacity” may be used onl y if the facility 1) does not have a permit or there is no limit stated in the permit to es tablish their permitted capacity ; 2) has not started operations or does not have at least one calendar ye ar of production records ; and 3) does not claim exemption from the 20 percent GHG threshold under §80.1403. Due to the complexity of the exemption pro vision provided under §80.1403 and the added flexibility that facilities claiming this exemption are allotted under the program, we are finalizing our decision that the exten sion of this option not be available to facilities claiming an exemption under §80 .1403. Additionally , by this stage in the RFS program, the facilities that would qualify for registration under §80.1403 would be very

few, if any . We are also finalizing the revision of the definition of baseline volume to include “nameplate capacity ,” add a new definition for “nameplate capacit y” to §80.1401, and include conforming amendments to the registration requirements of §80.1450. The amendments today

will allow the initial registration of certain facilities using nameplate capacity , but EPA interprets the requirements for registration updates under 80.1450(d)(i) and (ii) to require the calculation and submission of actual peak capacity as part of the registration updates required in those sections where the facility has operated for a sufficient time period to allow that calculation. 6 . Changes to § 80.1463

– What Penalties Apply Under the RFS Program? Preventing the generation and use of invalid RINs and encouraging rapid retirement and replacement of invalid RINs is crucial to the integrity of the RFS program. The RFS regulations*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **102** of **150** include various provisions related to prohibited acts, liability for vio lations, and penalties for those violations. Section 80.1460 sets forth the prohibited acts for the renewable fuels program. Section 80.1461(a) states that any person who violates a prohibition in § 80.1460 (a) through (d) is liable for the violation of that prohibition, and § 80.1461(b) provides the liability provisions for failure to meet other provisions of the regulations. The penalty provisions of the regulations at § 80.1463(a) state that any person who is liable for a violation under § 80.1461 is sub ject to a civil penalty as specified in sections 205 and 211(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), for every day of each such violation and the amount of economic benefit or savings resulting from each violation. Section 80.1463(c) provides that ‘‘an y person . . . is liable for a separate day of violation for each day such a requirement remains unfulfilled.’’ As described in the proposal, EPA interprets these statutory and regulatory

penalty provisions to give the Agency the authorit y to seek penalties against parties generating, transferring or causing another person to generate or transfer invalid RINs for the day of the party ’s action and each day subsequent to the party ’s action that an invalid RI N is available for sale or use b y a part y subject to an obligation under the RFS program to acquire and retire RINs. For example, for a RIN generator, this time period ty picall y runs from the date of invalid RIN generation until either effective corrective action is taken by the RIN generator to remove the invalid R INfrom the marketplace or a party uses the RIN to satisfy

an RVO or other requirement to retire RINs . This is consistent with the CAA approach of assessing penalties for every day of a violation, consistent with EPA’s historic approach under the fuels re gulations (see § 80.615),*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **103** of **150** and will encourage renewable fuel producers that generate invalid RINs to promptly take corrective action. EPA received comments from two parties in opposition of the proposed regulation in § 80.1463. Both commenters stated that RI N may be kept in another part y’s inventory outside of the generator’s or transferor’s control. Therefore, if that RI N is later identified as invalid the generator and transferor could be held to substantial penalties based on actions by other parties be yond their control. One of the commenters stated they believe that finalizing this regulation will “cause confusion and may create disincentives for producers to self - report and take corrective actions, rather than promote compliance . ” While EPA acknowle dges that the RIN generator or subsequent transferor cannot force another party to retire invalid RI Ns, the regulations at § 80.1431(b)(1) state that “Upon determination by any part y that RI

Ns owned are invalid, the party

must ...retire the invalid RINs in th e applicable RIN transaction reports...for the quarter in which the RI Ns were determined to be invalid . ” Therefore, EPA believes that finalizing EPA’s existing interpretation of per day violations for the generation or transfer of invalid RI Ns will minimize potential penalties and incentivize part ie s who committed a prohibited act at § 80.1460 (b)(1) - (4) and (b)(6) to identify invalid RINs to those owning parties so they can retire RINs as required in § 80.1431(b)(1) prior to an obligated party or renewable fu el exporter using those RI Ns for compliance purposes. One commenter stated that EPA should continue to use its enforcement discretion to assign appropriate penalties instead of finalizing this regulation. In the proposal, EPA explained that this regulation would simply codify our existing practice and interp retation and that we*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **104** of **150** would continue to evaluate the appropriate penalties for each violation on a case b y case basis. Although EPA is finalizing this regulation to make it clear to the regulated industry that EPA has the authority

to seek the maximum statutory penalty for each day

of violation, the Agency

will continue to evaluate appropriate penalties on a case by case basis. As described above, EPA is finalizing the addition of the new paragraph (d) to § 80.1463 which more explicitly

incorporates EPA’s interpretation of these penalty provisions into the regulations. The language has been modified from the proposal to follow the existing format and language in § 80.1463. The amendments state that any person liable under § 80.1461(a) for a violation of § 80 .1460(b)(1) - (4) and (b)(6) for RIN generation or transfer violations is subject to a separate day

of violation for each day that the invalid RI

N remains available for use for compliance purposes, and EPA has the authority to seek the maximum statutory pena lty for each day of violation. F . Minor Corrections to RFS Provisions We are finalizing a number of corrections to address minor definitional issues that have been identified in implementing the RFS program. Renewable Biomass : We did not receive an y significant comment on our proposed clarification to the definition “renewable biomass” in § 80.1401 and thus are finalizing proposed changes to make*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **105** of **150** clear that biomass obtained in the vicinity of buildings means biomass obtained within 200 feet of the buildings. The preamble for the March 26, 2010 RFS final rule cites the distance of 200 feet (see 75 FR 14696), but EPA did not include a reference to this value in the regulations. We believe doing so provides additional clarity to the regulations. “Naphtha” : We did not receive an y significant comment on our proposed clarification to the definition “naphtha” in § 80.1401 and thus are finalizing the p roposed changes to make clear that we consider naphtha a blending component of gasoline. English Language Translations : We received no significant comments on our proposed changes related to E nglish language translations. Therefore, we are finalizing the addition of a new paragraph (i) to § 80.1450 stat ing that an y registration materials submitted to EPA must be in English or accompanied b y an English language translation. Similarly , we are finalizing the addition of a new paragraph (h) to § 80.1451 , which state s that any reports submitted to EPA must be in English or accompanied by an English language translation . We are also finalizing the addition of a new paragraph (q) to § 80.1454 , which state s that an y records submitted to EPA must be in English or accompanied by an English language translation. The translation and all other associated documents must be maintained by the submitting company

for a period of five (5)*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **10 6**  of **150** ye ars, which is already

the established time period for keeping records un der the existing RFS program. Correction of Ty

pographical Errors : No comments were received on our proposed corrections to ty pographical errors, thus w e are finalizing ty

pographical and grammatical corrections in § 80.1466 as proposed. Specificall y, w e are amend ing paragraph (o) to correct a t ypographical error in the last sentence of the affirmation statement, b y changing the citation from §80.1465 to §80.1466. We are also amend ing paragraph (d)(3)(ii) to correct a t ypographical error. The current r egulation cites § 80.65(e)(2)(iii), which does not exist. The correct citation is § 80.65(f)(2)(iii). **V. Am**  **endments to the E15 Misfueling Mitigation Rule** In the NPRM, we proposed several minor corrections and other changes to the E15 misfueling mitigation rule (E15 MMR) found at 40 CFR part 80, subpart N. A. Changes to § 80.1501

– Label We proposed to correct several minor errors in the description of the E15 label required by the E15 MMR at § 80.1501, including corrections in the dimensions of the label and ensuring that the word “ATTENTION” is capitalized. The Agency intended the label required b y the regulations to look identical to that pictured in the Federal Register notice for the final E15*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **107** of **150** MMR (see 76 FR 44406, 44418, July 25, 2011), but there were some minor ty pographical errors in the regulations. We received a number of comment s on the E15 label changes, and most were supportive of the corrections to the regulations to make the label consistent with the picture of the E15 label in the E15 MMR. However, some comments expressed concerns about the potential costs to retail station s alread y lawfully selling E15 with labels produced under the current regulations. We recognize this concern; however, we do not believe that this is an issue since EPA has worked closel y with the limited number of retail stations that have lawfull y offer ed E15 to date to ensure that their labels met the intent of the E15 MMR (i.e. , were consistent with the label pictured in the E15 MMR). We also received several comments requesting that EPA make substantive changes to the E15 label (e.g. , change the word “ATTENTION” to “WARNI NG”). The Agency

thoroughl y explained its rationale for its label design in the E15 MMR and was not intending to make substantive changes to the E15 label in this rulemaking. We also received comments suggesting additional labeling requirements for blender pumps. We believe that these comments are outside of the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, we are finalizing the changes to the E15 labeling regulations at § 80.1501 as proposed. B. Changes to § 80.1502

– E15 Survey*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **108** of **150** We propose d two changes to the survey requirements found at § 80.1502. First, we proposed to clarify

that E15 survey s need to sample for Reid vapor pressure (RVP) only during the high ozone season as defined in § 80.27(a)(2)(ii) or during an y time RVP standards appl y in any state implementation plan approved or promulgated under the Clean Air Act. EPA did not intend to require RVP sampling and testing during the rest of the ye ar, when RVP standards do not apply . Second, we proposed to change when the results of sur vey s that detect potential noncompliance must be reported to the Agency . As originall y drafted, the regulations require the independent survey

association conducting a survey to notify EPA of potentially

noncompliant samples within 24 hours of the laborat ory receiving this sample (see 76 FR at 44423, July 25, 2011). EPA has since learned that more time may be needed for reporting of noncompliant samples since it may

take several day s for anal ys is of the sample to be completed. We are therefore requiring that noncompliant samples be reported to EPA within 24 hours of being anal yz ed. Comments received on these two changes to the E15 survey requirements were overwhelmingly

supportive. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the changes to the E15 survey requirement s in § 80.1502 as proposed. C. Changes to § 80.1503

– Product Transfer Documents*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **109** of **150** In the NPRM, we proposed certain minor changes to the product transfer document (PTD) requirements found in §80.1503. Specifically , we proposed to allow the use of product codes for conventional blendstock/gasoline upstream of an ethanol blending facility , since historically , the codes have been allowed to be used for conventional blendstock/gasoline upstream of an ethanol blending facility in other fuels programs. We noted that this was an unintentional omission from the original regulation. Commenters unanimously supported including language that allowed the use of product codes for conventional blendstock/gasoline upstream of an ethanol blending facility . Some comment ers pointed out that maintaining the current language allowing the use of product codes downstream of an ethanol blending facility did not make sense since product codes have not ty picall y been used in that part of the gasoline distribution chain. Therefo re, we are finalizing the flexibility

for parties upstream of an ethanol blending facility to use product codes and removing the extraneous language for product code use downstream of an ethanol blending facility . We also received comment on whether this proposed change was in response to a petition for reconsideration from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) (formerl y the National Petroleum Refiners Association, or NPRA), which raised a number of questions regarding the E15 MMR PTD r equirements. 98 Today’s regulatory change only

addresses one of the questions that AFPM raised regarding the E15 MMR PTD requirements in its petition. Today ’s action was not meant to address all of the questions raised by AFPM regarding the E15

98 See September 15, 2011 letter from AFPM entitled, “Request for Partial Reconsideration of EPA’s “Misfueling Rule” 76 Fed. Reg. 44,406 (July 25, 2011),” Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0401 - 0041.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **110** of **150** MMR PTD requ irements. It should be noted that most of the questions raised in AFPM’s petition did not require changes to the regulations and were simply questions on the implementation and applicability of the E15 MMR requirements. For example, AFPM was unclear on what the wintertime PTD requirements for gasoline/blendstocks upstream of an ethanol blending facilit y are under the E15 MMR. These t ypes of questions are t ypicall y addressed through guidance provided to affected parties (either directl y or via guidance le tters or the Fuels Program Frequent Questions web page) and do not necessitate a change to our regulations. However, we may consider further changes to the E15 MMR PTD requirements in a future rulemaking that address some or all of the remaining questions raised in AFPM’s petition for reconsideration. We also sought comment on potential way s of streamlining the PTD language required at §80.1503. We received one comment that suggested substantial changes to the PTD language requirements. For example, the commenter suggested removing most of the downstream RVP language requirements that were intended to inform retail stations of their summertime RVP requirements. The commenter pointed out that such a streamlining of the PTD requirements in the E15 MMR wou ld significantly reduce compliance costs for industry . We feel that these suggested changes would significantl y alter the PTD language in such a way that may no longer carry out our intent, which is to inform parties throughout the gasoline distribution c hain all the way down to the retail station of their applicable regulatory requirements. Such changes are outside the scope of today’s rulemaking, which includes only a minor technical change to the E15 MMR PTD requirements. Therefore, we are not finaliz ing such changes at this time. Although we are not engaging in a substantial streamlining of the PTD language required at*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **111** of **150** §80.1503 in today ’s action, we may revisit the streamlining of E15 MMR PTD language in a future rulemaking. D. Changes to § 80.1504

– Prohibited Acts In the NPRM, we proposed a slight rewording of § 80.1504(g) to state that blending E10 that has taken advantage of the statutory 1.0 psi RVP waiver during the summertime RVP control period with a gasoline - ethanol fuel that cannot take advantage of the 1.0 psi RVP waiver (i.e., a fuel that contains more than 10.0 volume percent ethanol (e.g., E15) or less than 9 volume percent ethanol) would be a violation of the E15 MMR. As originall y written, the language does not clearl y describe the pro hibited activity (see 76 FR 44435, 44436, July 25, 2011). We received no direct comments on this specific proposed change. We did, however, receive comments suggesting that we expand the prohibited activities language in §80.1504 to allow for the bette r enforcement of ethanol content requirements at blender pumps. The addition of new prohibited activities to §80.1504 is outside the intended scope of today ’s action. Therefore we are finalizing the slight rewording of the prohibited activities language o f § 80.1504(g) as proposed. E. Changes to § 80.1500

– Definitions In response to the August 17, 2011 petition for reconsideration submitted by NPRA, now AFPM, which requested the Agency , under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), reconsider certain*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **112** of **150** portions of the E15 MMR, we granted AFPM’s petition for reconsideration on the issue of the definitions of E10 and E15 in the E15 MMR. AFPM expressed concern that the Agency had defined E10 and E15 in the E15 MMR in a way that would change how ethanol concentrations are determined for regulatory purposes. While EPA did not intend the definitions of E10 and E15 in the E15 MMR to have this effect, we proposed changes to the regulations to avoid this perceived impact. Specifically , we proposed to add a new section, §80.150 9, containing language that clearl y states that when ethanol concentrations are measured for compliance testing purposes for 40 CFR part 80, subpart N, the applicable ethanol concentration value will be rounded using the rounding procedures at §80.9. We a lso proposed modifications to language throughout 40 CFR part 80, subpart N, to better reflect our intentions in defining E10 and E15 in the E15 MMR, including a small revision to §80.1508. Comments received on this issue generall y supported EPA’s approac h to continue to allow the rounding of test results to determine whether fuel samples had adhered to applicable ethanol content samples under §80.9. One commenter suggested that EPA remove the remaining decimal points to make the point more clearl y that r ounding applied to the testing of fuels samples for ethanol content. Another commenter argued that making such a change would allow parties to manufacture gasoline - ethanol blended fuels containing more than 10 volume percent ethanol without taking appropriate measures to ensure that vehicles and engines not covered by the E15 partial waiver decisions were not misfueled by gasoline - ethanol blended fuels containing more than 10 volume percent ethanol.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **113** of **150** We continue to believe that it is necessary to make our intent clear that parties that blend gasoline - ethanol blended fuels with more than 10 volume percent ethanol and up to 15 volume percent ethanol must adhere to the requirements for such fuels under the E15 MMR. Our approach will continue to enforce ethanol content standards as we have in the past, through the appropriate use of rounding procedures specified in the regulations under §80.9. We do not believe we need to remove the decimal points from the proposed regulatory text since we were careful to en sure that such language onl y appeared in places where the blending of gasoline ethanol blended fuels containing greater than 10 volume percent ethanol would necessitate further action by

the party manufacturing such fuel. Therefore, we are finalizing the changes to the definitions of the E15 MMR and the new language under §80.1509 as proposed. Additionally , in order to remain consistent with requirements for evidence used to determine compliance with requirements in other fuels programs, we are not finaliz ing the proposed changes to §80.1508 , which covers the evidence responsible parties and the Agency can use to demonstrate compliance with E15 MMR requirements . **VI. Am**  **endments to the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD)**  **Survey** In the NPRM, EPA proposed a reduction in the minimum sample size for the UL SD survey program from 5,250 annual samples to 1,800 samples. 99 We argued that compliance with

99 The ULSD rule includes a provision that deems branded refiners liable for violations of the ULSD sulfur standard that are found at retail outlets displaying the refiner’s brand (40 CFR 80.612). The regulations include defense provisions. One element of a branded refin er’s defense to such violations is that it must have a periodic sampling and testing program at the retail level (40 CFR 80.613(b) and (d)). The regulations also set forth an alternative sampling and testing defense element provision for branded refiners. This alternative defense element provision (40 CFR 80.613(e)) allow s a branded refiner to meet the company - specific downstream periodic sampling and testing element of its defense by participating in a survey consortium that pays an independent surveyor to sample diesel fuel at retail outlets nationwide. The number of samples that are taken each year is determined by a statistical*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **114** of **150** the UL SD sulfur content standard has been extremely high; less than 1% of the samples have been in violation in re cent y ears , and the use of the statistical formula in the regulations would result in a sampling rate of several hundred samples per quarter for each of the past several y ears, instead of 5,250 samples required annuall y. The cost difference between taking several hundred samples a quarter versus taking over 5,000 samples annually is significant. For these reasons we believed that the high compliance rate and the substantial discrepancy between the sampling rate calculated b y the formula in the regulations and the minimum sampling size justified our proposal of a minimum annual sampling rate of 1,800 samples. Public comments received on the proposed reduction in sampling rate were overwhelming supportive. Most comments suggested that EPA reduce the mini mum sampling rate for the ULSD program to the proposed rate of 1,800. However, some commenters suggested that we reduce the sample size even further. Consistent with most comments, we are finalizing the proposed rate of 1,800 samples per ye ar. Since the program is based on conducting four quarterl y survey s, only

about 450 samples are collected to represent all retail stations offering diesel fuel, over 60,000 stations, nationwide each quarter. A further reduction in the sample size may compromise the ro bustness of the survey program’s ability

to detect non - compliance, even taking into account today’s high compliance rates. Although we acknowledge that a further reduction in the sample size could reduce costs even further, there is a point where the numb er of samples per ye ar would be so few that the survey would be meaningless relative to robust sampling and testing programs conducted b y each refiner individuall y. We feel that a rate of 1,800 samples strikes the correct balance of ensuring compliance wi th ULSD standards formula that is based in part on the previous year’s compliance rate. In addition, the regulations set a floor of 5,250 samp les that must be taken in an annual survey cycle regardless of the sample number that would be calculated using the regulatory formula.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **115** of **150** downstream while controlling costs for branded refiners that choose to utilize the UL SD survey program as an alternative affirmative defense. Additionally , one commenter, citing high costs, suggested that we remove the alternative affirmative defense altogether. It is important to note that participation in the consortium that conducts the ULSD survey is completely

voluntary

and the program pro vides each branded refiner an alternative to conducting individual downstream sampling and testing programs. We believe that as long as there is continued interested by some branded refiners to take advantage of the UL SD survey

program alternative affirmative defense, we should maintain the flexibility to allow those parties the ability to conduct such a survey in lieu of individual downstream sampling and testing programs to establish an affirmative defense to potential downstream violations. Therefore , today

we are reducing the minimum annual sampling size for the UL SD survey program from 5,250 samples to 1,800 samples. However, we will continue to closely monitor national UL SD compliance rates and branded refiner interest in maintaining the ULSD surv ey program to determine whether further reduction in sample sizes is necessary . **VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews**  A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **116** of **150** Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a "significant regulatory

action” because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingl y, 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 The information collection requirements in thi s rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq . The Information Collection Request (I CR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA I CR number 2469.01. A s upporting statement for the ICR has been placed in the docket. The information collection is described in the following paragraphs. The following existing I CRs are being amended: OMB numbers 2060 - 0639, 2060 - 0637 , 2060 - 0640 , and 2060 - 0675). This action contains recordkeeping and reporting that may affect the following parties under the RFS regulation: RI N generators (producers, importers), obligated parties (refiners), exporters, and parties who own or transact RINs. We estimate that 670 parties may be subject to the information collection. We estimate an annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 3.1 hours per respondent. This action contains recordkeeping and reporting that may affect the following parties under the E15 regulation: gaso line refiners, gasoline and ethanol importers, gasoline and ethanol blenders (including terminals and carriers). We estimate that 2,000*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **117** of **150** respondents may

be subject to the information collection. We estimate an annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 1.3 hours per respondent. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency . This includes the time needed to review the instructio ns; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and sy stems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with an y previously

applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transit or otherwise disclose the information. Burden is as defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). An agency

may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it display s a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations i n 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 . When this I CR is approved b y OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection requirements contained in this final rule. C. Regulatory

Flexibility

Act The Regulatory

Flexibility

Act (RFA) generall y requires an agency to prepare a regulatory

flexibility

analy sis of any

rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or an y other statute unless the agency*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **118** of **150** 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 j urisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today 's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined b y the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisd iction that is a government of a city , count y, 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 action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The amendments to the RFS provisions in this final rule allow for additional opportunities for parties to participate in the RFS program b y producing qualifying fuel if they choose to, clarify existing provisions, remove the possibility of exemptions for entities that are no longer small entities due to growth in their business, or make relatively minor corrections and modifications to th e se regulations. The various changes to the E15 misfueling mitigation regulations are relativel y minor corrections and should not place an y additi onal burden on small entities. The reduction in the required sample size for the voluntary ULSD survey

program should reduce the burden of any small entit y that elects to participate in the ULSD survey program.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **119** of **150** 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 y ear. We have determined that this action will not result in expe nditures 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

requir ements that might significantly or uniquel y affect small governments. It only

applies to gasoline, diesel fuel, and renewable fuel producers, importers, distributors and marketers and makes relatively minor corrections and modifications to the RFS and die sel 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 . Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executi ve Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **120** of **150** promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specificall y solicited comment on the proposed action from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It applies to gasoline, diesel fuel, and renewable fuel producers, importers, distributors and marketers. This action does not impose any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Tribal governments would be affected onl y to the extent they

purchase and use regulated fuels. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply t o this action, EPA specifically solicited comment from tribal officials in developing this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and S afety Risks EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as appl yi ng only to those regulatory

actions that concern health or safet y risks, such that the anal ys is 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 estab lish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safet y risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply , Distribution, or Use*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **121** of **150** 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 action amends existing re gulations related to renewable fuel, E15, and ultra - low sulfur diesel. We have concluded that this rule is not likely to have an y adverse energy

effects. In fact, we expect this rule may result in positive effects, because man y of the changes we are fina lizing will facilitate the introduction of new renewable fuels under the RFS program and have come at the suggestion of industry stakeholders. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 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. Volunt ary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted b y voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, throu gh OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards. The regulations permit the use of an anal yt ical method certified b y a voluntary consensus standard bod y in order for certain producers to comp ly with applicable registration requirements. Producers of renewable fuel made from energy cane and producers of renewable fuel made using*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **122** of **150** two or more feedstocks converted simultaneously , when at least one of the feedstocks does not have a minimum 75% ave rage adjusted cellulosic content , and at least one of which is a pathway producing RINs with a D code of 3 or a D code of 7 using a process described in §80.1426(f)(1 5 )(i)(A) or §80.1426(f)(1 5 )(i)(B) , must obtain data used to calculate the cellulosic conve rted fraction using an anal yt ical method certified by a voluntary

consensus standards bod y or using a method that would produce reasonabl y accurate results as demonstrated through peer reviewed references provided to the third part y engineer performing the engineering review at registration. The Agency therefore believes this rulemaking is consistent with the requirements of the NTTAA. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and L ow - Income Populations. Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 , February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy

on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted b y law, to make environme ntal justice part of their mission by

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionatel y high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low - income populations in th e United States. EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionatel y 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 technical*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **123** of **150** amendments do not relax the control measures on sources regulated b y the RFS regulations and therefore will 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, generall y provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency

promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a cop y of the rule, to eac h House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 Stat es prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 day s after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective [ INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ] . L. Clean Air Act Section 307(d) This rule is subject to s ection 307(d) of the CAA. Section 307(d)(7)(B) provides that “[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificit y during the period for public comment (including an y public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. ” This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **124** of **150** impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to the EPA should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, William Jefferson Clinton Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460, with a cop y to both the person(s) listed in the preceding F OR FURTHER I NFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Director of the Air and Radiation L aw Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

**IX. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority**  Statuto ry authorit y for this action comes from section 211 of the Clean Air Act, 42 § U.S.C. 7545. Additional support for the procedural and compliance related aspects of this proposal, including the recordkeeping requirements, comes from sections 114, 208, and 3 01(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7414, 7542, and 7601(a).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **125** of **150 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80**  Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Energy , Forest and Forest Products, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated:

_____________________________

____________________________________ Gina McCarth y, Administrator*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **126** of **150** For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: **PART 80 –**  **REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES** 1. The authorit y citation for part 80 continues to read as follows: Authority : 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545 and 7601(a). **Subpart I —**  **[Amended]** 2. Section 80.613 is amended by revising the “Where” statement defining the value of “n” in paragraph (e)(4)(v)(A) to read as follows: **§ 80.613 What defenses apply to persons deemed**  **liable for a violation of a prohibited act under this subpart?**  * * * * * (e) * * * (4) * * * (v) * * * (A) * * * Where: n = minimum number of samples in a year - long survey series. However, in no case shall n be larger than 9,600 or smaller than 1,800. * * * * * **Subpart M —**  **[Amended]** 3. Section 80.1401 is amended as follows: a. By

adding the definitions of “Adjusted cellulosic content”, “Agricultural digester,” “Nameplate capacity”, “Renewable compressed natural gas”, “Renewable liquefied natural gas”, and “S mall refinery” in alphabetical order. b. By

revising the definitions of “Biogas”, “Crop residue”, “Energy cane”, “Naphtha”, “Renewable biomass”, and “S mall refinery” in alphabetical order. **§ 80.1401 Definitions.**  * * * * * Adjusted cellulosic content means the percent of organic material that is cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. * * * * * Agricultural digester means an anaer obic digester that processes predominantly cellulosic materials, including animal manure, crop residues, and/or separated yard waste.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **127** of **150** * * * * * Biogas means a mixture of hydrocarbons that is a gas at 60 degrees Fahrenheit and 1 atmosphere of pressure that is produced through the anaerobic digestion of organic matter. * * * * * Crop residue means biomass left over from the harvesting or processing of planted crops from existing agricultural land and an y biomas s removed from existing agricultural land that facilitates crop management (including biomass removed from such lands in relation to invasive species control or fire management), whether or not the biomass includes any portion of a crop or crop plant. Bio mass is considered crop residue only if the use of that biomass for the production of renewable fuel has no significant impact on demand for the feedstock crop, products produced from that feedstock crop, and all substitutes for the crop and its products, nor any other impact that would result in a significant increase in direct or indirect GHG emissions. * * * * * Energy cane means a complex hy brid in the Saccharum genus that has been bred to maximize cellulosic rather than sugar content. For the purpose s of this subpart: (1) Energy

cane excludes the species Saccharum spontaneum , but may include hy

brids derived from S. spontaneum that have been developed and publicl y released by USDA; and (2) Energy

cane only

includes cultivars that have, on average, at least 75% adjusted cellulosic content on a dry mass basis. * * * * * Nameplate capacity means the peak design capacity of a facility

for the purposes of registration of a facility

under § 80.1450(b)(1)(v)(C). Naphtha means a blendstock or fuel bl ending component falling within the boiling range of gasoline which is composed of only hydrocarbons, is commonly or commerciall y known as naphtha and is used to produce gasoline through blending. * * * * * Renewable biomass means each of the following ( including an y incidental, de minimis contaminants that are impractical to remove and are related to customary feedstock production and transport): (1) Planted crops and crop residue harvested from existing agricultural land cleared or cultivated prior to December 19, 2007 and that was nonforested and either activel y managed or fallow on December 19, 2007. (2) Planted trees and tree residue from a tree plantation located on non - federal land (including land belonging to an Indian tribe or an Indian individu al that is held in trust by the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **128** of **150** U.S. or subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the U.S.) that was cleared at any time prior to December 19, 2007 and activel y managed on December 19, 2007. (3) Animal waste material and animal by products. ( 4) Slash and pre - commercial thinnings from non - federal forestland (including forestland belonging to an Indian tribe or an Indian individual, that are held in trust b y the United States or subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United S tates) that is not ecologically sensitive forestland. (5) Biomass (organic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis) obtained from within 200 feet of buildings and other areas regularl y occupied b y people, or of public infrastructure, in an area at risk of wildfire. (6) Algae. (7) Separated yard waste or food waste, including recycled cooking and trap grease, and materials described in § 80.1426(f)(5)(i). Renewable compressed natural gas (CNG) means biogas or biogas - derived pipeline qu ality gas that is compressed for use as transportation fuel and meets the definition of renewable fuel. * * * * * Renewable liquefied natural gas (LNG) means biogas or biogas - derived pipeline quality gas that goes through the process of liquefaction in which it is cooled below its boiling point, and which meets the definition of renewable fuel. * * * * * Small refinery means a refinery for which the average aggregate dail y crude oil throughput (as determined by dividing the aggregate throughput for th e calendar y ear b y the number of day s in the calendar y ear) does not exceed 75,000 barrels. * * * * * 4. Section 80.1415 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (c)(1) to read as follows: **§ 80.1415 How are equivalence values assigned to renewable**  **fuel?** (b) * * * (5) 77,000 Btu (lower heating value) of compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) shall represent one gallon of renewable fuel with an equivalence value of 1.0.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **129** of **150** * * * * * (c) * * * (1) The equivalence value for renewable fuels described in paragraph (b)(7) of this section shall be calculated using the following formula: EV = (R / 0.972) * (EC / 77,000) Where: EV = Equivalence Value for the renewable fuel, rounded to the nearest tenth. R = Renewable content of the renewable fuel. This is a measure of the portion of a renewable fuel that came from renewable biomass, expressed as a fraction, on an energy

basis. EC = Energy

content of the renewable fuel, in Btu per gallon (lower heating value). * * * * * 5. Section 80.1416 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: **§ 80.1416 Petition process for evaluation of new renewable fuels pathways.** * * * * * (d) A D code must be approved prior to the generation of RINs for the fuel in question. During petition review EPA will evaluate whether a feedstock meets the 75% cellulosic content threshold allowing cellulosic RI Ns to be generated for the entire fuel volume produced. The Administrator may

ask for additional information to complete this evaluation. * * * * * 6. Section 80.1426 is amended as follows: a. By

revising rows K, L, M, N, P, and Q of Table 1 to § 80.1426. b. By

adding a new row T to Table 1 to § 80.1426. c. By

revising paragraphs (f)(3)(vi), (f)(4)(i)(A)( 2 ), (f)(5)(v), (f)(10), and (f)( 11). d. By

adding new paragraphs (f)(15) and (f)(16). **§ 80.1426 How are RINs generated and assigned to batches of renewable fuel by renewable fuel producers or importers?**  * * * * * (f) * * * (1) * * * **Table 1 to § 80.1426 —** 

**Applicable D Codes for Each Fu el Pathway for Use in Generating**  **RINs** Fuel type Feedstock Production process requirements D - Code * * * * * * **** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **130** of **150** K Ethanol Crop residue, slash, pre - commercial thinnings and tree residue, switchgrass, miscanthus, energy cane, Arundo donax, Pennisetum purpureum, and separated yard waste; biogenic components of separated MSW; cellulosic components of separated food waste; and cellulosic components of annual cover crops Any process that converts cellulosic

biomass to fuel 3

L Cellulosic diesel, jet fuel and heating oil Crop residue, slash, pre - commercial thinnings and tree residue, switchgrass, miscanthus, energy cane, Arundo donax, Pennisetum purpureum, and separated yard waste; biogenic components of separated MSW; cellulosic components of separat ed food waste; and cellulosic components of annual cover crops Any process that converts cellulosic

biomass to fuel 7

M Renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock Crop residue, slash, pre - commercial thinnings, tree residue, and separated yard wa ste; biogenic components of separated MSW; cellulosic components of Catalytic Pyrolysis and Upgrading,

Gasification and Upgrading, Thermo Catalytic Hydrodeoxygenation and Upgrading, Di rect Biological Conversion, Biological Conversion and Upgrading utilizing natural gas, biogas, and/or biomass as the only process energy sources providing that process used converts cellulosic biomass to fuel; any process utilizing biogas and/or biomass 3*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **131** of **150** separated food waste; and cellulosic components of annual cover crops a s the only process energy sources

which converts cellulosic biomass to fuel N Naphtha Switchgrass, miscanthus, energy cane, Arundo donax, and Pennisetum purpureum Gasification and upgrading processes

that converts cellulosic biomass to fuel 3

* * * * * * * P Ethanol, renewable diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, and naphtha The non - cellulosic portions of separated food waste and non cellulosic components of annual cover crops Any 5

Q Renewable Compressed Natural Gas, Renewable Liquefied Natural Gas, Renewable Electricity Biogas from landfills, municipal wastewater treatment facility digesters, agricultural digesters, and separated MSW digesters; and biogas from the cellulosic components of biomass processed in other waste digesters Any 3

* * * * * * * T Renewable Compressed Natural Gas, Renewable Liquefied Natural Gas, and Renewable Electricity Biogas from waste digesters Any 5

* * * * * (3) * * **** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **132** of **150** (vi) If a producer produces a single t ype of renewable fuel using two or more different feedstocks which are processed simultaneousl y, and each batch is comprised of a single t ype of fuel, then the number of gallon - RI Ns that shall be generated for a batch of renewable fuel and assigned a particular D code shall be determined according to the formulas in Table 4 to this section. Table 4 to §80.1426 Number of gallon - RI

Ns to assign to batch - RI

Ns with D codes dependent on feedstock D code to use in batch - RIN Number of gallon - RI Ns D = 3 D = 4 D = 5 D = 6 D = 7 Where: V RI N,CB = RI N volume, in gallons, for use in determining the number of gallon - RI Ns that shall be generated for a batch of cellulosic biofuel with a D code of 3. V RI N,BBD = RI

N volume, in gallons, for use in determining the number of gallon - RI Ns that shall be gen erated for a batch of biomass - based diesel with a D code of 4. V RI N,AB = RIN volume, in gallons, for use in determining the number of gallon - RI Ns that shall be generated for a batch of advanced biofuel with a D code of 5. V RI N,RF = RIN volume, in gallons , for use in determining the number of gallon - RI Ns that shall be generated for a batch of renewable fuel with a D code of 6. V RI N,CD = RIN volume, in gallons, for use in determining the number of gallon - RI Ns that shall be generated for a batch of cellulos ic diesel with a D code of 7. EV = Equivalence value for the renewable fuel per §80.1415. V S = Standardized volume of the batch of renewable fuel at 60 °F, in gallons, calculated in accordance with paragraph (f)(8) of this section. FE 3 = Feedstock energ y from all feedstocks whose pathway s have been assigned a D code of 3 under Table 1 to this section, or a D code of 3 as approved b y the Administrator, in Btu.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **133** of **150** FE 4 = Feedstock energy

from all feedstocks whose pathway s have been assigned a D code of 4 unde r Table 1 to this section, or a D code of 4 as approved b y the Administrator, in Btu. FE 5 = Feedstock energy

from all feedstocks whose pathway s have been assigned a D code of 5 under Table 1 to this section, or a D code of 5 as approved b y the Administrat or, in Btu. FE 6 = Feedstock energy

from all feedstocks whose pathway s have been assigned a D code of 6 under Table 1 to this section, or a D code of 6 as approved b y the Administrator, in Btu. FE 7 = Feedstock energy

from all feedstocks whose pathway s hav e been assigned a D code of 7 under Table 1 to this section, or a D code of 7 as approved b y the Administrator, in Btu. Feedstock energy

values, FE, shall be calculated according to the following formula:

FE = M * (1 − m) * CF * E Where: FE = Feedstock energy , in Btu. M = Mass of feedstock, in pounds, measured on a daily or per - batch basis. m = Average moisture content of the feedstock, in mass percent. CF = Converted Fraction in annual average mass percent, except as otherwise provided by § 80.1451(b)(1)(ii)(U), representing that portion of the feedstock that is converted into renewable fuel by the producer. E = Energy

content of the components of the feedstock that are converted to renewable fuel, in annual average Btu/lb, determined according to pa ragraph (f)(7) of this section. (4) * * * (i) * * * (A) * * * ( 2 ) The value of FE for use in paragraph (f)(4)(i)(A)( 1 ) of this section shall be calculated from the following formula: FE = M * (1 −m) * CF * E Where: FE = Feedstock energy , in Btu.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **134** of **150** M = Mass of feedstock, in pounds, measured on a daily or per - batch basis. m = Average moisture content of the feedstock, in mass percent. CF = Converted Fraction in annual average mass percent, except as otherwise provided by § 80.1451(b)(1)(ii)(U), representing that portion of the feedstock that is converted into transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel by the producer. E = Energy

content of the components of the feedstock that are converted to fuel, in annual average Btu/lb, determined according to paragraph (f)(7) of this section. * * * * * (5) * * * (v) The number of cellulosic biofuel gallon - RI Ns that shall be generated for the cellulosic portion of a batch of renewable fuel derived from separated MSW as defined in paragraph (f)(5)(i)(C) of thi s section shall be determined according to the following formula: V RI N = EV * V S * R Where: V RI N = RIN volume, in gallons, for use in determining the number of cellulosic biofuel gallon - RI Ns that shall be generated for the batch. EV = Equivalence value for the batch of renewable fuel per §80.1415. V S = Standardized volume of the batch of renewable fuel at 60 °F, in gallons, calculated in accordance with paragraph (f)(8) of this section. R = The calculated non - fossil fraction of the fuel as measured b y a carbon - 14 dating test method as provided in paragraph (f)(9) of this section, except that for biogas - derived fuels made from separated MSW, no testing is required and R = 1. * * * * * (10)(i) For purposes of this section, electricit y that is only distributed via a closed, private, non commercial s ys tem is considered renewable fuel and RINs may be generated if all of the following appl y: (A) The electricity

is produced from renewable biomass and qualifies for a D code in Table 1 to this section or has r eceived approval for use of a D code b y the Administrator. (B) The RIN generator has documentation for the sale, if applicable, and use of a specific quantity of renewable electricity

as transportation fuel, or has obtained affidavits from all parties sell ing or using the electricity as transportation fuel.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **135** of **150** (C) The electricit y is used as a transportation fuel and for no other purposes. (ii) For purposes of this section, CNG or LNG produced from biogas that is only distributed via a closed, private, non - comm ercial sy stem is considered renewable fuel for which RI Ns may be generated if all of the following apply : (A) The CNG/LNG is produced from renewable biomass and qualifies for a D code in Table 1 to this section or has received approval for use of a D code by the Administrator. (B) The RIN generator has entered into a written contract for the sale or use of a specific quantity of CNG/LNG to be used as transportation fuel, or obtained affidavits from all parties selling or using the CNG/L NG as transportation fuel. (C) The CNG/LNG is used as a transportation fuel and for no other purposes. (iii) A producer of electricity that is generated b y co - firing a combination of renewable biomass and fossil fuel may generate RINs onl y for the portion attributable to the r enewable biomass, using the procedure described in paragraph (f)(4) of this section. (11)(i) For purposes of this section, electricit y that is introduced into a commercial distribution sy stem (transmission grid) is considered renewable fuel for which RINs may be generated if all of the following appl y: (A) The electricity

is produced from renewable biomass and qualifies for a D code in Table 1 of this section or has received approval for use of a D code b y the Administrator. (B) The RIN generator has docum entation for the sale and use of a specific quantity of renewable electricit y as transportation fuel, or has obtained affidavits from all parties selling or using the electricit y as transportation fuel. (C) The quantit y of electricity for which RINs were g enerated was sold for use as transportation fuel and for no other purpose. (D) The renewable electricity was loaded onto and withdrawn from a phy sically connected transmission grid. (E) The amount of electricity sold for use as transportation fuel corresponds to the amount of electricit y derived from biogas that was placed into the commercial distribution sy stem. (F) No other party relied upon the renewable electricity for the creation of RI

Ns. (ii) For purposes of this section, CNG or LNG produced from biogas that is introduced into a commercial distribution sy stem is considered renewable fuel for which RINs may be generated if all the following appl y: (A) The fuel is produced from renewable biomass and qualifies for a D code in Table 1 to this sect ion or has received approval for use of a D code b y the Administrator. (B) The RIN generator has entered into a written contract for the sale or use of a specific quantity of renewable CNG/LNG, taken from a commercial distribution sy stem (e.g., phy sicall y connected pipeline, barge, truck, rail), for use as a transportation fuel, or has obtained affidavits from all parties selling or using the CNG/LNG taken from a commercial distribution sy stem as a transportation fuel. (C) The quantit y of CNG/L NG for which RI

Ns were generated was sold for use as transportation fuel and for no other purposes. (D) The biogas/CNG/LNG was injected into and withdrawn from the same commercial distribution sy stem.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **136** of **150** (E) The biogas/CNG/LNG that is ultimately withdrawn from the commerc ial distribution sy stem for use as transportation fuel is withdrawn in a manner and at a time consistent with the transport of the biogas/CNG/LNG between the injection and withdrawal points. (F) The volume and heat content of biogas/CNG/LNG injected into a pipeline and the volume of biogas/CNG/LNG withdrawn to make a transportation fuel are measured b y continuous metering. (G) The amount of fuel sold for use as transportation fuel corresponds to the amount of fuel derived from biogas that was placed into the commercial distribution sy stem. (H) No other part y relied upon the volume of biogas/CNG/L NG for the creation of RINs. (iii) For renewable electricity that is generated b y co - firing a combination of renewable biomass and fossil fuel, the producer may ge nerate RINs only

for the portion attributable to the renewable biomass, using the procedure described in paragraph (f)(4) of this section. * * * * * (15) Application of formulas in paragraph (f)(3)(vi) of this section to certain producers generating D3 or D7 RINs. (i) If a producer seeking to generate D code 3 or D code 7 RINs produces a single ty pe of renewable fuel using two or more feedstocks converted simultaneously , and at least one of the feedstocks does not have a minimum 75% average adjusted cellulosic content, one of the following additional requirements apply : (A) If the producer is using a thermochemical process to convert cellulosic biomass into cellulosic biofuel, the producer is subject to additional registration requirements under § 80.1450(b)(1)(xiii)(A). (B) If the producer is using any process other than a thermochemical process, or is using a combination of processes, the producer is subject to additional r egistration requirements under § 80.1450(b)(1)(xiii)(B) and r eporting requirements under § 80.1451(b)(1)(ii)(U). (ii) [Reserved] (16) Renewable fuel produced from crop residue. Producers generating RINs for qualifying renewable fuel utilizing crop residue as feedstock under Pathway K or Pathway

Lmust meet all of the following conditi ons (in addition to any other applicable requirements): (i) Registration requirements under § 80.1450(b)(1)(xv). (ii) Reporting requirements under § 80.1451(b)(1)(ii)(V). (iii) Recordkeeping requirements under § 80.1454(s). 7. Section 80.1440 is amended as follows: a. By revising the section heading. b. By revising paragraph (a). c. By revising paragraph (d). d. By revising paragraph (e).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **137** of **150 § 80.1440**  **What are the provisions for blenders who handle and blend less than 250,000 ga**  **llons of renewable fuel per year?** (a) Renewable fuel blenders who handle and blend less than 250,000 gallons of renewable fuel per ye ar, and who do not have one or more reported or unreported Renewable Volume Obligations, are permitted to delegate their R IN - related responsibilities to the party directly upstream of them who supplied the renewable fuel for blending. * * * * * (d) Renewable fuel blenders who handle and blend less than 250,000 gallons of renewable fuel per ye ar and delegate their RIN - related responsibilities under paragraph (b) of this section must register pursuant to § 80.1450(e), and may not own RINs. (e) Renewable fuel blenders who handle and blend less than 250,000 gallons of renewable fuel per ye ar and who do not opt to delegate their RI N - related responsibilities, or own RI Ns, will be subject to all requirements stated in paragraph (b) of this section, and all other applicable requirements of this subpart M. 8. Section 80.1441 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(2)(iii) to read as foll ows: **§ 80.1441 Small refinery exemption.**  * * * * * (e) * * * (2) * * * (iii) In order to qualify for an extension of its small refinery exemption, a refinery must meet the definition of “small refinery” in § 80.1401 for the most recent full calendar y ear prior to seeking an extension and must be projected to meet the definition of “small refinery” in § 80.1401 for the ye ar or years for which an exemption is sought. Failure to meet the definition of small refinery

for any calendar y ear for which an exemption was granted would invalidate the exemption for that calendar year. * * * * * 9. Section 80.1450 is amended as follows: a. By

revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii). b. By

revising paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(C) and (b)(1)(v)(D), and b y adding paragraph (b)(1)(v)(E). c. By

adding paragraphs (b)(1)(xiii) through (xv). d. By

revising paragraph (d)(2). e. By

adding paragraph (h). f. By

adding paragraph (i). **§ 80.1450**  **What are the registration requirements under the RFS program?** * * * * * (b) * * * (1) * * **** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **138** of **150** (ii) A description of the facility ’s renewable fuel or ethanol production process es. (A) For registrations indicating production of cellulosic biofuel (D codes 3 or 7) from feedstocks other than biogas (including through pathway s in rows K, L, M, and N of Table 1 to § 80.1426), the producer must demonstrate the ability to convert cell ulosic components of feedstock into fuel by providing all of the following: ( 1 ) A process diagram with all relevant unit processes labeled and a designation of which unit process is capable of performing cellulosic treatment, including required inputs and outputs at each step. ( 2 ) A description of the cellulosic biomass treatment process, including required inputs and outputs used at each step. ( 3 ) A description of the mechanical, chemical and biochemical mechanisms by which cellulosic materials can be converted to biofuel products. (B) [Reserved] * * * * * (v) * * * (C)( 1 ) For all facilities, copies of documents demonstrating each facility 's actual peak capacity as defined in § 80.1401 if the maximum rated annual volume output of renewable fuel is not specified in the air permits specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(A) and (b)(1)(v)(B) of this section, as appropriate. ( 2 ) For facilities not claiming the exemption described in § 80.1403(c) or (d) which are exempt from air permit requirements and for whi ch insufficient production records exist to establish actual peak capacity , copies of documents demonstrating the facility ’s nameplate capacity , as defined in § 80.1401. (D) For all facilities producing renewable electricity or other renewable fuel from biogas, submit all relevant information in § 80.1426(f)(10) or (11), including: ( 1 ) Copies of all contracts or affidavits, as applicable, that follow the track of the biogas/CNG/LNG or renewable electricit y from its original source, to the producer that processes it into renewable fuel, and finally to the end user that will actually use the renewable electricit y or the renewable CNG/L NG for transportation purposes. ( 2 ) Specific quantity , heat content, and percent efficiency of transfer, as applicable, an d any conversion factors, for the renewable fuel derived from biogas. (E) An y other records as requested b y the Administrator. * * * * * (xiii) (A) A producer of renewable fuel seeking to generate D code 3 or D code 7 RI Ns, or a foreign ethanol produ cer seeking to have its product sold as cellulosic biofuel after it is denatured, who intends to produce a single ty pe of fuel using two or more feedstocks converted simultaneously , where at least one of the feedstocks does not have a minimum 75% average a djusted cellulosic content, and who uses only a thermochemical process to convert feedstock into renewable fuel, must provide all the following : ( 1 ) D ata showing the average adjusted cellulosic content of the feedstock(s) to be used to produce fuel, based on the average of at least three representative samples. Cellulosic content data must come from an anal yt ical method certified by a*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **139** of **150** voluntary consensus standards body or using a method that would produce reasonabl y accurate results as demonstrated through peer reviewed references provided to the third party engineer performing the engineering review at registration . Samples must be of representative feedstock from the primary feedstock supplier that will provide the fuel producer with feedstock subsequent t o registration. ( 2 ) For producers who want to use a new feedstock(s) after initial registration, updates to their registration under paragraph (d) of this section indicating the average adjusted cellulosic content of the new feedstock. ( 3 ) For producers a lready registered as of [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], to produce a single t ype of fuel that qualifies for D code 3 or D code 7 RINs (or would do so after denaturing) using two or more feedstocks converted simultaneously u sing only

a thermochemical process, the information specified in this paragraph (b)(1)(xiii)(A) shall be provided at the next required registration update under paragraph (d) of this section. (B) A producer of renewable fuel seeking to generate D code 3 or D code 7 RI Ns, or a foreign ethanol producer seeking to have its product sold as cellulosic biofuel after it is denatured, who intends to produce a single ty pe of fuel using two or more feedstocks converted simultaneously , where at least one of the fee dstocks does not have a minimum 75% adjusted cellulosic content, and who uses a process other than a thermochemical process or a combination of processes to convert feedstock into renewable fuel, must provide all the following: ( 1 ) The expected overall f uel yield , calculated as the total volume of fuel produced per batch (e.g., cellulosic biofuel plus all other fuel) divided by the total feedstock mass per batch on a dry

weight basis (e.g., cellulosic feedstock plus all other feedstocks). ( 2 ) The cellulosic Converted Fraction (CF) that will be used for generating RI Ns under § 80.1426(f)(3)(vi). ( 3 ) Chemical analy sis data supporting the calculated cellulosic Converted Fraction and a discussion of the possible variability that could be expected betw een reporting periods per § 80.1451(b)(1)(ii)(U)( 1 ). Data used to calculate the cellulosic CF must be representative and obtained using an anal yt ical method certified b y a voluntary

consensus standards bod y, or using a method that would produce reasonabl y accurate results as demonstrated through peer reviewed references provided to the third part y engineer performing the engineering review at registration . ( 4 ) A description and calculations showing how the data were used to determine the cellulosic Converted Fraction.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **140** of **150** ( 5 ) For producers alread y registered as of [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], to produce a single t ype of fuel that qualifies for D code 3 or D code 7 RINs (or would do so after denaturing) using two or more feedstocks converted simultaneously using a combination of processes or a process other than a thermochemical process, the information specified in this paragra ph (b)(1)(xiii)(B) shall be provided at the next required registration update under paragraph (d) of this section. (xiv) For a producer of cellulosic biofuel made from energy cane, or a foreign renewable fuel producer making ethanol from energy cane an d seeking to have it sold after denaturing as cellulosic biofuel, provide all of the following: (A) Data showing that the average adjusted cellulosic content of each cane cultivar they

intend to use is at least 75%, based on the average of at least three representative samples of each cultivar. Cultivars must be grown under normal growing conditions and consistent with acceptable farming practices. Samples must be of feedstock from a feedstock supplier that the fuel producer intends to use to supply

feed stock for their production process and must represent the feedstock supplier’s range of growing conditions and locations. Cellulosic content data must come from an anal yt ical method certified by a voluntary

consensus standards bod y or using a method that w ould produce reasonabl y accurate results as demonstrated through peer reviewed references provided to the third party engineer performing the engineering review at registration . (B) Producers that want to change or add new cultivar(s) after initial registration must update their registration and provide EPA with data in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section demonstrating that the average adjusted cellulosic content for an y new cultivar is at least 75%. Cultivars that do not meet this requirement are considered sugarcane for purposes of Table 1 to § 80.1426. (xv) For a producer of cellulosic biofuel made from crop residue or a foreign renewable fuel producer making ethanol from crop residue and seeking to have it sold after denaturing as cellulo sic biofuel, provide all the following information: (A) A list of all feedstocks the producer intends to utilize as crop residue. (B) A written justification which explains why each feedstock a producer lists according to paragraph (b)(1)(xv)(A) of this se ction meets the definition of “crop residue” per § 80.1401. (C) For producers already registered as of [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], to produce a renewable fuel using crop residue, the information specified in this paragraph (b)(1)(xv) shall be provided at the next required registration update under paragraph (d) of this section. * * * * **** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **141** of **150** (h) Deactivation of Company Registration. (1) EPA may deactivate a company ’s registration, using the process in paragraph (h)(2) of this section, if an y of the following criteria are met: (i) The compan y has reported no activity in EMTS for twenty - four consecutive months. (ii) The compan y has failed to comply with the registration requirements of this section. (iii) The compan y has failed to submit any required report within thirty day s of the required submission date under § 80.1451. (iv) The attest engagement required under § 80.1454 has not been received within thirty day s of the required submission date. (2) EPA will use the fol lowing process whenever it decides to deactivate the registration of a compan y: (i) EPA will provide written notification to the responsible corporate officer identifying the reasons or deficiencies of why EPA intends to deactivate the company ’s registrati on. The compan y will have fourteen calendar days from the date of the notification to correct the deficiencies identified or explain why there is no need for corrective action. (ii) If the basis for EPA’s notice of intent to deactivate registration is the absence of EMTS activity , a stated intent to engage in activity reported through EMTS will be sufficient to avoid deactivation of registration. (iii) If the compan y does not respond, does not correct identified deficiencies, or does not provide an adequate explanation regarding why such correction is not necessary within the time allotted for response, EPA may deactivate the company ’s registration without further notice to the party . (3) Impact of registration deactivation: (i) A compan y whose r egistration is deactivated shall still be liable for violation of any requirements of this subpart. (ii) A compan y whose registration is deactivated will not be listed on any public list of activel y registered companies that is maintained by EPA. (iii) A compan y whose registration is deactivated will not have access to any of the electronic reporting s ys tems associated with the renewable fuel standard program, including the EPA Moderated Transaction Sy stem (EMTS). (iv) A compan y whose registration is deactivated must submit any corrections of deficiencies to EPA on forms, and following policies, established by EPA. (v) If a compan y whose registration has been deactivated wishes to re - register, they may initiate that process b y submitting a new reg istration, consistent with paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. (i) Registration Procedures. (1) Registration shall be on forms, and following policies, established by

the Administrator. (2) English language registrations

–Any document submitted to EPA under this section must be submitted in English, or shall include an English translation.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **142** of **150** 10. Section 80.1451 is amended to read as follows: a. By

redesignating paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(U) as paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(W). b. By

adding a new paragraph (b)(1 )(ii)(U). c. By

adding paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(V). d. By

adding paragraph (j). **§ 80.1451**  **What are the reporting requirements under the RFS program?**

* * * * * (b) * * * (1) * * * (ii) * * * (U) Producers generating D code 3 or D code 7 RINs for fuel derived from feedstocks other than biogas (including through pathway s listed in rows K, L, M, and N of Table 1 to § 80.1426), and that was produced from two or more feedstocks converted simultaneously , at least one of which has less than 75% average adjusted cellulosic content, and using a combination of processes or a process other than a thermochemical process or a combination of processes shall report all of the following: ( 1 ) The cellulosic converted frac tion as determined b y collecting new representative process data and performing the same chemical analy sis method accepted at registration . Producers shall calculate this information on an annual basis or within 10 business day s of generating every 500,000 gallons of cellulosic biofuel, whichever is more frequent, and report quarterl y. Reports shall include all values used to calculate feedstock energy according to § 80.1426(f)(3)(vi). If new data shows that the cellulosic Converted Fraction is different than previousl y calculated, the formula used to generate RINs under § 80.1426(f)(3) must be updated as soon as practical but no later than 5 business day s after the producer receives the updated data. If new testing data results in a change to the cellulosi c Converted Fraction, onl y RI Ns generated after the new testing data were received, subject to the 5 - day

allowance, would be affected. ( 2) If the cellulosic Converted Fraction deviates from the previously calculated cellulosic Converted Fraction by 10% or more then the producer must notify EPA within 5 business day s of receiving the new data and must adjust the formula used to generate RINs under § 80.1426(f)(3) for all fuel generated as soon as practical but no later than 5 business day s after the produce r receives the new data. If new testing data results in a change to the cellulosic Converted Fraction, only RI Ns generated after the new testing data were received, subject to the 5 - day allowance, would be affected. (V) Producers of renewable fuel using crop residue as a feedstock shall report all of the following according to the schedule specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section :*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **143** of **150** ( 1 ) The specific feedstock(s) utilized to produce renewable fuel under a pathway allowing the use of crop residue as feed stock. ( 2 ) The total quantity of each specific feedstock used to produce renewable fuel. ( 3 ) The total amount of qualifying renewable fuel produced under the crop residue pathway (s) in that quarter. (W) Any additional information the Administrator may require. * * * * * (j) English language reports. Any document submitted to EPA under this section must be submitted in English, or shall include an English translation. 12. Section 80.1454 is amended as follows: a. By

revising paragraph (b)(4)(i). b. By

adding paragraph (b)(10). c. By

revising paragraph (f)(3)(i). d. By

revising paragraph (k)(1). e. By

adding a new paragraph (s). f. By

adding a new paragraph (t). **§ 80.1454**  **What are the recordkeeping requirements under the RFS program?** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** (b) * * * (4) * * * (i) A list of the RINs owned, purchased, sold, separated, retired, or reinstated. * * * * * (10) Records related to any volume of renewable fuel where RINs were not generated by the renewable fuel producer or importer pur suant to § 80.1426(c). * * * * * (f) * * * (3) * * * (i) A list of the RINs owned, purchased, sold, separated, retired, or reinstated. * * * * * (k)(1) Biogas/CNG/LNG and electricity in pathway s involving feedstocks other than grain sorghum. A renewabl e fuel producer that generates RINs for renewable CNG, renewable LNG or renewable electricity pursuant to § 80.1426(f)(10) or (11), or that uses process heat from biogas to produce renewable fuel pursuant to § 80.1426(f)(12) shall keep all of the following additional records: (i) Documentation recording the sale of renewable CNG, renewable LNG or renewable electricit y for use as transportation fuel relied upon in § 80.1426(f)(10), § 80.1426(f)(11), or for use of biogas for process heat to make renewable fue l as relied upon in § 80.1426(f)(12) and the*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **144** of **150** transfer of title of the biogas/CNG/LNG or renewable electricity from the point of biogas production to the facility

which sells or uses the fuel for transportation purposes. (ii) Documents demonstrating the vo lume and energy content of biogas/CNG/L NG, or kilowatts of renewable electricit y, relied upon under § 80.1426(f)(10) that was delivered to the facility which sells or uses the fuel for transportation purposes. (iii) Documents demonstrating the volume and energy content of biogas/CNG/LNG, or kilowatts of renewable electricit y, relied upon under § 80.1426(f)(11), or biogas relied upon under § 80.1426(f)(12) that was placed into the commercial distribution. (iv) Documents demonstrating the volume and energy c ontent of biogas relied upon under § 80.1426(f)(12) at the point of distribution. (v) Affidavits, EPA - approved documentation, or data from a real - time electronic monitoring sy stem, confirming that the amount of the biogas/CNG/LNG or renewable electricit y r elied upon under § 80.1426(f)(10) and (11) was used for transportation purposes only, and for no other purpose. The RIN generator shall obtain affidavits, or monitoring sy stem data under this paragraph (k), at least once per calendar quarter. (vi) The bio gas or renewable electricity producer's Compliance Certification required under Title V of the Clean Air Act. (vii) Any other records as requested by the Administrator. * * * * * (s) Producers of renewable fuel using crop residue shall keep records of all of the following: (1) The specific crop residue feedstock(s) utilized to produce renewable fuel for each batch of renewable fuel produced. (2) The total quantity of each specific crop residue feedstock used for each batch. (3) Total amount of fuel produce d under the crop residue pathway for each batch. (t) English language records. Any document requested by

the Administrator under this section must be submitted in English, or shall include an English translation. 13. Section 80.1463 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: **§80.1463 What penalties apply under the RFS program?** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** (d) An y person liable under § 80.1461(a) for a violation of § 80.1460(b)(1) through (4) or (b)(6) is subject to a separate day of violation for each day that an invalid RI N remains available for an obligated party or renewable fuel exporter to demonstrate compliance with the RFS program. **Subpart N —**  **[Amended]** 14. Section 80.1500 is amended by revising the definitions of “E10”, “E15”, and “EX” in alphabeti cal order to read as follows: **§ 80.1500**  **Definitions.***** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **145** of **150** * * * * * E10 means a gasoline - ethanol blend that contains at least 9 and no more than 10 volume percent ethanol. E15 means a gasoline - ethanol blend that contains greater than 10 volume percent ethanol and not more than 15 volume percent ethanol. EX means a gasoline

– ethanol blend that contains less than 9 volume percent ethanol where X equals the maximum volume percent ethanol in the gasoline - ethanol blend. * * * * * 15. Section 80.1501 is amended as follows: a. By

revising the section heading. b. By

revising paragraph (a) introductory text. c. By

revising paragraphs (b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(iv), and (b)(4)(ii). **§ 80.**  **1501 What are the labeling requirements that apply to retailers and wholesale** 

**purchaser -**  **consumers of gasoline -**  **ethanol blends that contain greater than 10 volume percent ethanol and not more than 15 volume percent ethanol?**  (a) Any

retailer or wholesale pur chaser - consumer who sells, dispenses, or offers for sale or dispensing E15 shall affix the following conspicuous and legible label to the fuel dispenser: * * * * * (b) * * * (3) * * * (i) The word “ATTENTION” shall be capitalized in 20 - point, orange, Hel vetica

Neue LT 77 Bold Condensed font, and shall be placed in the top 1.25 inches of the label as further described in paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section. * * * * * (iv) The words “Use onl y in” shall be in 20 - point, left - justified, black, Helvetica Bold font in the bottom 1.875 inches of the label. * * * * * (4) * * * (ii) The background of the bottom 1.875 inches of the label shall be orange. * * * * * 16. Section 80.1502 is amended as follows: a. By

revising paragraph (b)(1). b. By

revising para graphs (b)(3)(iii)(A) and (b)(3)(iv) introductory text. c. By

revising paragraphs (b)(4)(iv)(B) and (b)(4)(v)(A). d. By

revising paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(6), and (c)(7). e. By

revising paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4).*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **146** of **150 §**  **80.1502 What are the survey requireme**  **nts related to gasoline -**  **ethanol blends?** * * * * * (b) * * * (1) To comply

with the requirements under this paragraph (b), any gasoline refiner, gasoline importer, ethanol blender, ethanol producer, or ethanol importer who manufactures, introduces into co mmerce, sells or offers for sale E15, gasoline, blendstock for oxygenate blending, ethanol, or gasoline - ethanol blend intended for use in or as E15 must participate in a consortium which arranges to have an independent survey association conduct a statisti cally valid program of compliance survey s pursuant to a survey program plan which has been approved b y EPA, in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(5) of this section. * * * * * (3) * * * (iii) * * * (A) Samples collected at r etail outlets shall be shipped the same day the samples are collected via ground service to the laboratory and anal yz ed for oxygenate content. Samples collected at a dispenser labeled E15 in any manner, or at a tank serving such a dispenser, shall also be analyzed for RVP during the high ozone season defined in § 80.27(a)(2)(ii) or an y SIP approved or promulgated under §§ 110 or 172 of the Clean Air Act . Such anal ys is shall be completed within 10 day s after receipt of the sample in the laboratory . Nothin g in this section shall be interpreted to require RVP testing of a sample from an y dispenser or tank serving it unless the dispenser is labeled E15 in any manner. * * * * * (iv) Inthe case of any test that yields a result that does not match the label affixed to the product (e.g., a sample greater than 15 volume percent ethanol dispensed from a fuel dispenser labeled as “E15” or a sample containing greater than 10 volume percent ethanol and not more than 15 volume percent ethanol dispensed from a fuel dispenser not labeled as “E15”), or the RVP standard of § 80.27(a)(2) or any SIP approved or promulgated under §§ 110 or 172 of the Clean Air Act , the independent survey association shall, within 24 hours after the laboratory has completed anal ys is of the sample, send notification of the test result as follows: * * * * * (4) * * * (iv) * * * (B) In the case of an y retail outlet from which a sample of gasoline was collected durin g a survey

and determined to have an ethanol content that does not match the fuel dispenser label (e.g., a sample greater than 15 volume percent ethanol dispensed from a fuel dispenser labeled as “E15” or a sample with greater than 10 volume percent ethano l and not more than 15 volume percent ethanol dispensed from a fuel dispenser not labeled as “E15”) or determined to have a dispenser containing fuel whose RVP does not comply with § 80.27(a)(2) or any SIP approved or promulgated under §§ 110 or 172 of the Clean Air Act , that retail outlet shall be included in the subsequent survey . * * * * * (v) * * * (A) The minimum number of samples to be included in the survey plan for each calendar year shall be calculated as follows:*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **147** of **150** Where: n = Minimum number of samples in a year - long survey series. However, in no case shall n be smaller than 7,500. Z  = Upper percentile point from the normal distribution to achieve a one - tailed 95% confidence level (5%  - level). Thus, Z  equals 1.645. Z  = Up per percentile point to achieve 95% power. Thus, Z  equals 1.645. 1 

###  = The maximum proportion of non - compliant stations for a region to be deemed compliant. In this test, the parameter needs to be 5% or greater, i.e., 5% or more of the stations, within a stratum such that the region is considered non - compliant. For this survey, 1 

###  will be 5%.
o 

###  = The underl yi ng proportion of non - compliant stations in a sample. For the first survey

plan, o 

###  will be 2.3%. For subsequent survey plans, o 

###  will be the average of the proportion of stations found to be non - compliant over the previous four survey s. Stn = Number of sampling strata. For purposes of this survey program, Stn equals 3. F a = Adjustment factor for the number of extra samples required to compensate for coll ected samples that cannot be included in the survey , based on the number of additional samples required during the previous four survey s. However, in no case shall the value of F a be smaller than 1.1. F b = Adjustment factor for the number of samples requ ired to resample each retail outlet with test results exceeding the labeled amount (e.g., a sample greater than 15 volume percent ethanol dispensed from a fuel dispenser labeled as “E15”, a sample with greater than 10 volume percent ethanol and not more th an 15 volume percent ethanol dispensed from a fuel dispenser not labeled as “E15”), or a sample dispensed from a fuel dispenser labeled as “E15” with greater than the applicable seasonal and geographic RVP pursuant to § 80.27, based on the rate of resampli ng required during the previous four survey s. However, in no case shall the value of F b be smaller than 1.1. Sun = Number of survey s per year. For purposes of this survey program, Sun equals 4. * * * * * (c) * * * (4) The survey

program plan must be sent to the following address: Director, Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Mail Code 6506J, Washington, D.C. 20460. * * * * * (6) The approving official for a survey plan under this section is the Director of the 

#   

#   

#   n b a n 

### Su F F St arc arc Z Z n        ) )] sin( ) sin( [ * 4 ( 2 0 1 2 

### 

  *** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **148** of **150** Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. (7) Any

notifications or reports required to be submitted to EPA under this section must be directed to the official designated in paragraph (c)(4) of this section. (d) * * * (3) For the first y ear in which a survey program will be conducted, no later than 15 day s preceding the start of the survey EPA must receive a copy of the contract with the independent surv eyor and proof that the money necessary

to carry out the survey plan has either been paid to the independent surveyor or placed into an escrow account; if the money has been placed into an escrow account, a copy of the escrow agreement must to be sent to the official designated in paragraph (c)(4) of this section. (4) For subsequent y ears in which a survey program will be conducted, no later than December 15 of the ye ar preceding the ye ar in which the survey will be conducted, EPA must receive a cop y of the contract with the independent surveyor and proof that the money necessary

to carry out the survey

plan has either been paid to the independent surveyor or placed into an escrow account; if placed into an escrow account, a cop y of the escrow agreement must be sent to the official designated in paragraph (c)(4) of this section. * * * * * 17. Section 80.1503 is amended as follows:

a. By

revising paragraphs (a)(1)(vi)(B) and (a)(1)(vi)(C). b. By

revising paragraph (a)(2). c. By

adding paragraph (a)(3). d. By

revising paragraphs (b)(1)(vi)(B) through (D). **§ 80.1503**  **What are the product transfer document requirements for gasoline -**  **ethanol**

**blends, gasolines, and conventional blendstocks for oxygenate blending subject to this subpart?**  (a) * * * (1) * * * (vi) * * * (B) For gasoline designed for the special provisions for gasoline - ethanol blends in §80.27(d)(2), information about the ethanol content and RVP in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section, with insertio ns as indicated: ( 1 ) “Suitable for the special RVP provisions for ethanol blends that contain between 9 and 10 vol % ethanol.”. ( 2 ) “The RVP of this blendstock/gasoline for ox ygenate blending does not exceed [Fill in appropriate value] psi.”. ( 3 ) “The us e of this blendstock/gasoline to manufacture a gasoline - ethanol blend containing an ything other than between 9 and 10 volume percent ethanol may cause a summertime RVP violation.”. (C) For gasoline not described in paragraph (a)(1)(vi)(B) of this section, information regarding the suitable ethanol content, stated in the following format: “Suitable for blending with ethanol at a concentration of no more than 15 vol % ethanol.”.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **149** of **150** (2) The requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section do not apply to reformu lated gasoline blendstock for ox ygen ate blending, as defined in § 80.2(kk), which is subject to the product transfer document requirements of §§ 80.69 and 80.77. (3) Except for transfers to truck carriers, retailers, or wholesale purchaser consumers, pr oduct codes may be used to convey

the information required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section if such codes are clearl y understood b y each transferee. (b) * * * (1) * * * (vi) * * * (B) For gasoline containing less than 9 volume percent ethanol, the f ollowing statement: “EX

– Contains up to X% ethanol. The RVP does not exceed [fill in appropriate value] psi.” The term X refers to the maximum volume percent ethanol present in the gasoline. (C) For gasoline containing between 9 and 10 volume percent ethanol (E10), the following statement: “E10: Contains between 9 and 10 vol % ethanol. The RVP does not exceed [fill in appropriate value] psi. The 1 psi RVP waiver applies to this gasoline. Do not mix with gasoline containing any thing other than betwe en 9 and 10 vol % ethanol.”. (D) For gasoline containing greater than 10 volume percent and not more than 15 volume percent ethanol (E15), the following statement: “E15: Contains up to 15 vol % ethanol. The RVP does not exceed [fill in appropriate va lue] psi.”. * * * * * 18. Section 80.1504 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3), (b) through (e), and (g) to read as follows: **§ 80.1504 What acts are prohibited under this subpart?**  * * * * * (a)(1) Sell, introduce, cause or permit the sale or introduction of gasoline containing greater than 10 volume percent ethanol (i.e., greater than E10) into an y model y ear 2000 or older light - duty gasoline motor vehicle, any heavy - dut y gasoline motor vehicle or engine, an y highway or off - highway motorcyc le, or an y gasoline - powered nonroad engines, vehicles or equipment. * * * * * (3) Be prohibited from manufacturing, selling, introducing, or causing or allowing the sale or introduction of gasoline containing greater than 10 volume percent ethanol into any flex fuel vehicle, notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section. (b) Sell, offer for sale, dispense, or otherwise make available at a retail or wholesale purchaser - consumer facility E15 that is not correctly

labeled in accordance with § 8 0.1501. (c) Fail to fully

or timely implement, or cause a failure to fully or timel y implement, an approved survey

required under § 80.1502. (d) Fail to generate, use, transfer and maintain product transfer documents that accuratel y reflect the t yp e of p roduct, ethanol content, maximum RVP, and other information required under §80.1503.*** E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft Version

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page **150** of **150** (e)(1) Improperl y blend, or cause the improper blending of, ethanol into conventional blendstock for ox ygenate blending, gasoline or gasoline already containing ethanol, in a manner inconsistent with the information on the product transfer document under § 80.1503(a)(1)(vi) or (b)(1)(vi). (2) No person shall produce a fuel designated as E10 by blending ethanol and gasoline in a manner designed to produce a fuel that cont ains less than 9.0 or more than 10.0 volume percent ethanol. (3) No person shall produce a fuel designated as E15 by blending ethanol and gasoline in a manner designed to produce a fuel that contains less than 10.0 volume percent ethanol or more than 15. 0 volume percent ethanol. * * * * * (g) For gasoline during the regulatory control periods, combine an y gasoline - ethanol blend that qualifies for the 1 psi allowance under the special regulatory treatment as provided by § 80.27(d) applicable to 9 - 10 volume percent gasoline - ethanol blends with any gasoline containing less than 9 volume percent ethanol or more than 10 volume percent ethanol up to a maximum of 15 volume percent ethanol. * * * * * 19. A new section 80.1509 is added to subpart N to read as follows: **§ 80.1509 Rounding a test result for purposes of this subpart N.** 

The provisions of § 80.9 apply for purposes of determining the ethanol content of a gasoline - ethanol blend under this subpart.