Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542-0605
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Supplemental Determination for Renewable Fuels Produced under the Final RFS2 Program from Grain Sorghum
Posted Date: 2012-12-17T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74592-74607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30100]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542; FRL-9760-2]

Supplemental Determination for Renewable Fuels Produced Under the 
Final RFS2 Program From Grain Sorghum

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a supplemental rule associated with the 
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. This final rule contains a 
lifecycle GHG analysis for grain sorghum ethanol and a regulatory 
determination that grain sorghum ethanol qualifies as a renewable fuel 
under the RFS Program. EPA's analysis indicates that ethanol made from 
grain sorghum at dry mill facilities that use natural gas for process 
energy meets the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions reduction threshold 
of 20 percent compared to the baseline petroleum fuel it would replace, 
and therefore qualifies as renewable fuel. It also contains our 
regulatory determination that grain sorghum ethanol produced at dry 
mill facilities using specified forms of biogas for both process energy 
and most electricity production, has lifecycle GHG emission reductions 
of more than 50 percent compared to the baseline petroleum fuel it 
would replace, and that such grain sorghum ethanol qualifies as an 
advanced biofuel under the RFS Program.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jefferson Cole, Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Climate Division, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC 20460 (MC: 6041A); telephone number: 202-564-1283; fax 
number: 202-564-1177; email address: cole.jefferson@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline of This Preamble

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
II. Analysis of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    A. Methodology
    1. Scope of Analysis
    2. Models Used
    3. Scenarios Modeled for Impacts of Increased Demand for Grain 
Sorghum
    4. Model Modifications
    B. Results
    1. Agro-Economic Impacts
    2. International Land Use Change Emissions
    3. Grain Sorghum Ethanol Processing
    4. Results of Lifecycle Analysis for Ethanol From Grain Sorghum 
(Using Dry Mill Natural Gas)
    5. Results of Lifecycle Analysis for Ethanol From Grain Sorghum 
(Using Biogas for Process Energy and On-Site Electricity Production)
    6. Other Ethanol Processing Technologies
    C. Consideration of Lifecycle Analysis Results
    1. Implications for Threshold Determinations
    2. Consideration of Uncertainty
    D. Other Comments Received
    E. Summary
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action are those involved 
with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels, 
including gasoline and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such as biodiesel 
and renewable diesel. Regulated categories include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                NAICS \1\                     Examples of potentially regulated
                  Category                        codes       SIC\2\ codes                 entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................          324110            2911  Petroleum Refineries.
Industry...................................          325193            2869  Ethyl alcohol manufacturing.
Industry...................................          325199            2869  Other basic organic chemical
                                                                              manufacturing.
Industry...................................          424690            5169  Chemical and allied products
                                                                              merchant wholesalers.
Industry...................................          424710            5171  Petroleum bulk stations and
                                                                              terminals.
Industry...................................          424720            5172  Petroleum and petroleum products
                                                                              merchant wholesalers.
Industry...................................          454319            5989  Other fuel dealers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\2\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to engage in activities 
that may be affected by today's action. To determine whether your 
activities would be affected, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 80, subpart M. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding section.

[[Page 74593]]

II. Analysis of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions

A. Methodology

1. Scope of Analysis
    On March 26, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
published changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard program regulations as 
required by 2007 amendments to CAA 211(o). This rulemaking is commonly 
referred to as the ``March, 2010 RFS2 final rule''. As part of the 
March, 2010 RFS2 final rule we analyzed various categories of biofuels 
to determine whether the complete lifecycle GHG emissions (domestic and 
international) associated with the production, distribution, and use of 
those fuels meet minimum lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction thresholds 
as specified in CAA section 211(o) (i.e., 60% for cellulosic biofuel, 
50% for biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel, and 20% for other 
renewable fuels). Our final rule focused our lifecycle analyses on 
fuels that were anticipated to contribute relatively large volumes of 
renewable fuel by 2022 and thus did not cover all fuels that either are 
contributing or could potentially contribute to the program. In the 
preamble to the final rule, EPA indicated that it had not completed the 
GHG emissions impact analysis for several specific biofuel production 
pathways but that this work would be completed through supplemental 
rulemaking processes. Since the final rule was issued, we have 
continued to examine several additional pathways. On June 12, 2012, we 
published a Notice of Data Availability Concerning Renewable Fuels 
Produced From Grain Sorghum Under the RFS Program (see 77 FR 34915). In 
that notice of data availability, we provided an opportunity for 
comment on EPA's analysis of grain sorghum used as a feedstock to 
produce ethanol under the RFS program. Today's final rule describes our 
lifecycle analysis of ethanol made from grain sorghum (``grain sorghum 
ethanol'') and presents our determination that grain sorghum ethanol 
qualifies as renewable fuel (20% lifecycle GHG reduction as compared to 
baseline fuel) or as advanced biofuel (50% lifecycle GHG reduction as 
compared to baseline fuel) if produced pursuant to specified pathways. 
The modeling approach EPA used in this analysis is the same general 
approach used in the March, 2010 RFS2 final rule for lifecycle analyses 
of other biofuels.\1\ The March, 2010 RFS2 final rule preamble and 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) provides further discussion of our 
approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA. 2010. Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory 
Impact Analysis. EPA-420-R-10-006. http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Models Used

    The analysis EPA has prepared for grain sorghum ethanol uses the 
same set of models that was used for the March, 2010 RFS2 final rule. 
To estimate the domestic agricultural impacts presented in the 
following sections, we used the Forestry and Agricultural Sector 
Optimization Model (FASOM) developed by Texas A&M University. To 
estimate the international agricultural sector impacts, we used the 
Food and Agricultural Policy and Research Institute international 
models as maintained by the Center for Agricultural and Rural 
Development (FAPRI-CARD) at Iowa State University. For more information 
on the FASOM and FAPRI-CARD models, refer to the March, 2010 RFS2 final 
rule preamble (75 FR 14670) or the March, 2010 RFS2 final rule 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).\2\ The models require a number of 
inputs that are specific to the pathway being analyzed, including 
projected yields of feedstock per acre planted, projected fertilizer 
use, and energy use in feedstock processing and fuel production. The 
docket includes detailed information on model inputs, assumptions, 
calculations, and the results of our assessment of the lifecycle GHG 
emissions performance of specified pathways for producing grain sorghum 
ethanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA. 2010. Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory 
Impact Analysis. EPA-420-R-10-006. http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf. Additional RFS2 related documents can 
be found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/regulations.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Scenarios Modeled for Impacts of Increased Demand for Grain Sorghum

    To assess the impacts of an increase in renewable fuel volume from 
business-as-usual (what is likely to have occurred without the RFS 
biofuel mandates) to levels required by the statute, we established a 
control case and other cases for a number of biofuels analyzed for the 
March, 2010 RFS2 final rule. The control case included a projection of 
renewable fuel volumes that might be used to comply with the RFS 
renewable fuel volume mandates in full. The other cases are designed 
such that the only difference between a given case and the control case 
is the volume of an individual biofuel, all other volumes remaining the 
same. In the March, 2010 RFS2 final rule, for each individual biofuel, 
we analyzed the incremental GHG emission impacts of increasing the 
volume of that fuel to the total mix of biofuels needed to meet the 
EISA requirements.
    For the analysis of grain sorghum ethanol, we applied the same 
methodology as in the March, 2010 RFS2 final rule. In this case, we 
compared a scenario that included 200 million gallons of grain sorghum 
ethanol to another scenario that included 300 million gallons of grain 
sorghum ethanol, ensuring that all other renewable fuel volumes are 
equal between the two scenarios. The scenario with 200 million gallons 
of grain sorghum ethanol will henceforth be referred to as the 
``control case,'' which was developed to account for the current 
production of grain sorghum ethanol which is approximately 200 million 
gallons per year (see Chapter 1 of the March, 2010 RFS2 final rule 
RIA). All other volumes for each individual biofuel in this new control 
case remain identical to the control case used in the March, 2010 RFS2 
final rule. The scenario with 300 million gallons of grain sorghum 
ethanol will be referred to as the ``grain sorghum'' case. For the 
grain sorghum case, our modeling assumes approximately 300 million 
gallons of sorghum ethanol would be consumed in the United States in 
2022. The modeled scenario includes 2.06 billion lbs of grain sorghum 
to be used to produce the additional 100 million gallons of ethanol in 
2022.
    Our volume scenario of approximately 200 million gallons of grain 
sorghum ethanol in the control case, and 300 million gallons in the 
grain sorghum case in 2022, is based on several factors including 
historical volumes of grain sorghum ethanol production, potential 
feedstock availability and other competitive uses (e.g., animal feed or 
exports). Our assessment is described further in the inputs and 
assumptions document that is available through the docket (EPA 2011). 
Based in part on consultation with experts at the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and industry representatives, we 
believe that these volumes are reasonable for the purposes of 
evaluating the impacts of producing additional volumes of ethanol from 
grain sorghum.
    The FASOM and FAPRI-CARD models, described above, project how much 
grain sorghum will be supplied to ethanol production from a combination 
of increased production, decreases in others uses (e.g., animal feed), 
and decreases in exports, in going from the control case to the grain 
sorghum case.

[[Page 74594]]

4. Model Modifications
    Based on information from industry stakeholders, as well as in 
consultation with USDA, both the FASOM and FAPRI-CARD models assume 
perfect substitution in the use of grain sorghum and corn in the animal 
feed market in the U.S. Therefore, when more grain sorghum is used for 
ethanol production, grain sorghum that is used in feed decreases. 
Either additional corn or additional sorghum production will be used in 
the feed market to make up for this decrease, depending upon the 
relative cost of additional production. This assumption is based on 
conversations with industry and the USDA, reflecting the primary use of 
sorghum in the U.S. as animal feed, just like corn. We received a 
number of comments in response to our Notice of Data Availability 
(NODA) for Renewable Fuels Produced from Grain Sorghum Under the RFS 
Program (77 FR 34915, June 12, 2012) that support this assumption.
    The United States is one of the largest producers and exporters of 
grain sorghum. Two other large producers of grain sorghum, India and 
Nigeria, do not actively participate in the global trade market for 
sorghum. Rather, all grain sorghum in those two countries is produced 
for domestic consumption. Therefore, as the U.S. diverts some of its 
exports of grain sorghum for the purposes of ethanol production, we 
would expect close to no reaction in the production levels of grain 
sorghum in India and Nigeria. Historical data on prices, production, 
and exports from USDA, FAOSTAT (the Statistics Division of the Food and 
Agriculture Organization of the U.N.), and FAPRI support this 
assumption.\3\ We received several comments in response to our NODA 
that supported our proposed assumption that production of grain sorghum 
in India and Nigeria is not impacted by changes in production and trade 
of grain sorghum in the U.S. It should be noted that India and Nigeria 
are unique in this behavior in regards to grain sorghum production, 
consumption and trade. Other countries are expected to vary their 
harvested area in response to changes in U.S. grain sorghum exports, 
which can be seen in Table II-4 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memo to the Docket, Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542, 
Dated May 18, 2012 and personal communication with USDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Results

    As we did for our analysis of other feedstocks in the March, 2010 
RFS2 final rule, we assessed what the GHG emissions impacts would be 
from the use of additional volumes of sorghum for biofuel production. 
The information provided in this section discusses the assumptions and 
outputs of the analysis using the FASOM and FAPRI-CARD agro-economic 
models to determine changes in the agricultural and livestock markets. 
These results from FASOM and FAPRI-CARD are then used to determine the 
GHG emissions impacts due to land use change and other factors. 
Finally, we include our analysis of the GHG emissions associated with 
different processing pathways and how the choice of technologies affect 
the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with grain sorghum ethanol.
    As discussed in the March, 2010 RFS2 final rule and the 
accompanying peer review, there are inherent challenges in reconciling 
the results from two different models. However, using two models 
provides a more complete and robust analysis than either model would be 
able to provide alone. We have attempted to align as many of the key 
assumptions as possible to get a consistent set of modeling results 
although there are structural differences in the models that account 
for some of the differences in the model results. For example, since 
FASOM is a long-term dynamic optimization model, short-term spikes are 
smoothed out over the five year reporting period. In comparison, the 
FAPRI-CARD model captures annual fluctuations that may include short-
term supply and demand responses. In addition, some of the 
discrepancies may be attributed to different underlying assumptions 
pertaining to elasticities of supply and demand for different 
commodities. These differences, in turn, affect projections of imports 
and exports, acreage shifting, and total consumption and production of 
various commodities.
1. Agro-Economic Impacts
    EPA received no significant comments regarding the results from the 
FASOM and FAPRI-CARD models, nor did EPA receive recommendations that 
the models be re-run with different assumptions. Therefore, the results 
from these two models are identical to those results presented and 
discussed in the NODA. For more detailed results, please refer to the 
NODA. Given the importance of the land use change results for our 
emissions analysis we are presenting these identical results for 
reference in this final rule.
    In the FASOM model, the increase in grain sorghum area harvested is 
relatively modest, at an additional 4 thousand acres, due to the fact 
that demand for grain sorghum for use in ethanol production is being 
met by a shift of grain sorghum from one existing use (in the animal 
feed market) to another (ethanol production). Meeting the subsequent 
gap in supply of animal feed, however, leads to an increase of 141 
thousand corn acres in 2022. Another way to describe this interaction 
is that it is relatively more profitable to take grain sorghum out of 
the feed market for ethanol production and grow more corn, than it is 
to simply grow more grain sorghum for ethanol production. Due to the 
increased demand for corn production and harvested area, soybean 
harvested area would decrease by 105 thousand acres (corn and soybeans 
often compete for land). Other crops in the U.S., such as wheat, hay, 
and rice, are projected to have a net increase of 53 thousand acres.

      Table II-1--Summary of Projected Change in Crop Harvested Area in the U.S. in 2022 in the FASOM Model
                                              [Thousands of acres]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Grain sorghum
                                                                   Control case        case         Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorghum.........................................................          11,108          11,111               4
Corn............................................................          77,539          77,680             141
Soybeans........................................................          69,896          69,791            -105
Other...........................................................         154,511         154,564              53
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         313,054         313,146              92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 74595]]

    As demand for grain sorghum increases for ethanol production in the 
U.S., the FAPRI-CARD model estimates that the U.S. will decrease 
exports of grain sorghum and increase exports of corn to partially 
satisfy the gap of having less grain sorghum in the worldwide feed 
market. This combination of impacts on the world trade of grain sorghum 
and corn has effects both on major importers, as well as on other major 
exporters. For example, Mexico, one of the largest importers of grain 
sorghum, decreases its imports of grain sorghum and increases its 
imports of corn. Brazil also contributes more corn to the global market 
by increasing its exports.
    The change in trade patterns directly impacts the amount of 
production and harvested crop area around the world. Harvested crop 
area for grain sorghum is not only predicted to increase in the U.S., 
but also in Mexico (7.8 thousand acres) and other parts of the world. 
Worldwide grain sorghum harvested area outside of the U.S. would 
increase by 39.3 thousand acres. Similarly, the increase in the demand 
for corn would lead to an increase of 36.8 thousand harvested acres 
outside of the U.S. While soybean harvested area would decrease in the 
U.S., Brazil would increase its soybean harvested area (18.4 thousand 
acres) to satisfy global demand. Although worldwide soybean harvested 
area decreases by 11.7 thousand acres, non-U.S. harvested area 
increases by 11.2 thousand acres.
    Overall harvested crop area in other countries also increase, 
particularly in Brazil. Brazil's total harvested area is predicted to 
increase by 32.6 thousand acres by 2022. This is mostly comprised of an 
increase in corn of 18.1 thousand acres, and an increase in soybeans of 
18.4 thousand acres, along with minor changes in other crops. More 
details on projected changes in world harvested crop area in 2022 can 
be found below in Table II-2, Table II-3, Table II-4, and Table II-5.

  Table II-2--Summary of Projected Change in International (Non-U.S.) Harvested Area by Country in 2022 in the
                                                FAPRI-CARD Model
                                              [Thousands of acres]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Grain sorghum
                                                                   Control case        case         Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazil..........................................................         137,983         138,016              33
China...........................................................         272,323         272,334              11
Africa and Middle East..........................................         315,843         315,892              48
Rest of World...................................................       1,301,417       1,301,441              24
International Total (non-U.S.)..................................       2,027,567       2,027,682             115
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table II-3--Summary of Projected Change in International (Non-U.S.) Harvested Area by Crop in 2022 in the FAPRI-
                                                   CARD Model
                                              [Thousands of acres]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Grain sorghum
                                                                   Control case        case         Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorghum.........................................................          95,108          95,148              39
Corn............................................................         307,342         307,379              37
Soybeans........................................................         202,980         202,991              11
Other...........................................................       1,422,137       1,422,165              28
International Total (non-U.S.)..................................       2,027,567       2,027,682             115
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table II-4--Summary of Projected Change in International (Non-U.S.) Grain Sorghum Harvested Area by Country in
                                          2022 in the FAPRI-CARD Model
                                              [Thousands of acres]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Grain sorghum
                                                                   Control case        case         Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico..........................................................           4,569           4,576               8
Argentina.......................................................           1,915           1,917               2
India...........................................................          22,261          22,261               0
Nigeria.........................................................          18,841          18,841               0
Other Africa and Middle East....................................          37,833          37,856              23
Rest of World...................................................           9,689           9,695               6
International Total (non-U.S.)..................................          95,108          95,148              39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table II-5--Summary of Projected Change in International (Non-U.S.) Corn Harvested Area by Country in 2022 in
                                              the FAPRI-CARD Model
                                              [Thousands of Acres]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Grain sorghum
                                                                   Control case        case         Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa and Middle East..........................................          77,220          77,223               4
Asia............................................................         108,751         108,764              13

[[Page 74596]]

 
Brazil..........................................................          20,935          20,953              18
India...........................................................          20,176          20,180               5
Other Latin America.............................................          39,599          39,594              -5
Rest of World...................................................          40,661          40,664               2
International Total (non-U.S.)..................................         307,342         307,379              37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More detailed information on the agro-economic modeling can be 
found in the accompanying docket.
2. International Land Use Change Emissions
    The methodology used in today's assessment of grain sorghum as an 
ethanol feedstock is the same as that used in the March 2010 RFS2 final 
rule for analyses of other biofuel pathways. However, we have updated 
some of the data underlying the GHG emissions from international land 
use changes; therefore, we are providing additional detail on these 
modifications in this section.
    In our analysis, GHG emissions per acre of land conversion 
internationally (i.e., outside of the United States) are determined 
using the emissions factors developed for the March 2010 RFS2 final 
rule, following IPCC guidelines. In addition, estimated average forest 
carbon stocks were updated based on a new study which uses a more 
robust and higher resolution analysis. For the March 2010 RFS2 final 
rule, international forest carbon stocks were estimated from several 
data sources each derived using a different methodological approach. 
Two new peer-reviewed analyses on forest carbon stock estimation have 
been completed since the release of the March 2010 RFS2 final rule, one 
for three continental regions by Saatchi et al.\4\ and the other for 
the EU by Gallaun et al.\5\ We have updated our forest carbon stock 
estimates based on these new studies because they represent significant 
improvements as compared to the data used in the March 2010 RFS2 final 
rule. These updated forest carbon stock estimates were previously used 
in EPA's Notice of Data Availability Concerning Renewable Fuels 
Produced From Palm Oil Under the RFS Program (77 FR 4300, January 27, 
2012). Forest carbon stocks across the tropics are important in our 
analysis of grain sorghum ethanol because a significant amount of the 
land use changes in the scenarios modelled occur in tropical regions 
such as Brazil. In the scenarios modelled, there are also much smaller 
amounts of land use change impacts in the EU related to grain sorghum 
ethanol production. In the interest of using the best available data, 
we have incorporated the improved forest carbon stocks data in our 
analysis of lifecycle GHG emissions related to grain sorghum ethanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Saatchi, S.S., Harris, N.L., Brown, S., Lefsky, M., 
Mitchard, E.T.A., Salas, W., Zutta, B.R., Buermann, W., Lewis, S.L., 
Hagen, S., Petrova, S., White, L., Silman, M. And Morel, A. 2011. 
Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across 
three continents. PNAS doi: 10.1073/pnas.1019576108.
    \5\ Gallaun, H., Zanchi, G., Nabuurs, G.J., Hengeveld, G., 
Schardt, M., Verkerk, P.J. 2010. EU-wide maps of growing stock and 
above-ground biomass in forests based on remote sensing and field 
measurements. Forest Ecology and Management 260: 252-261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary results for Latin America and Africa from Saatchi et 
al. were incorporated into the March 2010 RFS2 final rule, but Asia 
results were not included due to timing considerations. The Saatchi et 
al. analysis is now complete, and so the final map was used to 
calculate updated area-weighted average forest carbon stocks for the 
entire area covered by the analysis (Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa 
and South and Southeast Asia). The Saatchi et al. results represent a 
significant improvement over previous estimates because they 
incorporate data from more than 4,000 ground inventory plots, about 
150,000 biomass values estimated from forest heights measured by space-
borne light detection and ranging (LIDAR), and a suite of optical and 
radar satellite imagery products. Estimates are spatially refined at 1-
km grid cell resolution and are directly comparable across countries 
and regions.
    In the March 2010 RFS2 final rule, forest carbon stocks for the 
European Union were estimated using a combination of data from three 
different sources. Issues with this `patchwork' approach were that the 
biomass estimates were not comparable across countries due to the 
differences in methodological approaches, and that estimates were not 
spatially derived (or, the spatial data were not provided to EPA). 
Since the release of the final rule, Gallaun et al. developed EU-wide 
maps of above-ground biomass in forests based on remote sensing and 
field measurements. MODIS data were used for the classification, and 
comprehensive field measurement data from national forest inventories 
for nearly 100,000 locations from 16 countries were also used to 
develop the final map. The map covers the whole EU, the European Free 
Trade Association countries, the Balkans, Belarus, the Ukraine, 
Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey.
    For both data sources, Saatchi et al. and Gallaun et al., we added 
belowground biomass to reported aboveground biomass values using an 
equation in Mokany et al.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Mokany, K., R.J. Raison, and A.S. Prokushkin. 2006. Critical 
analysis of root:shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes. Global Change 
Biology 12: 84-96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our analysis, forest stocks are estimated for over 750 regions 
across 160 countries. For some regions the carbon stocks increased as a 
result of the updates and in others they declined. For comparison, we 
ran our grain sorghum analysis using the old forest carbon stock values 
used in the March 2010 RFS2 final rule and with the updated forest 
carbon values described above. Using the updated forest carbon stocks 
increased the land use change GHG emissions related to grain sorghum 
ethanol by approximately 1.2 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent 
emissions per million British thermal units of grain sorghum ethanol 
(kgCO2e/mmBtu). Table II-6 includes the international land 
use change GHG emissions results for the scenarios modeled, in terms of 
kgCO2e/mmBtu. International land use change GHG emissions 
for grain sorghum are estimated at 30 kgCO2e/mmBtu.

[[Page 74597]]

         Table II-6--International Land Use Change GHG Emissions
                             [kgCO2e/mmBtu]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Region                              Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa and Middle East..................................               9
Asia....................................................               5
Brazil..................................................              14
India...................................................               1
Other Latin America.....................................               1
Rest of World...........................................               1
International Total (non-U.S.)..........................              30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More detailed information on the land use change emissions can be 
found in the accompanying docket.
3. Grain Sorghum Ethanol Processing
    The dry milling process is the ethanol production process 
considered here for producing ethanol from grain sorghum. In the dry 
milling process, the grain sorghum is ground and fermented to produce 
ethanol. The remaining distillers grains (DG) are then either left wet 
if used in the near-term or dried for longer term use as animal feed.
    For this analysis, the amount of grain sorghum used for ethanol 
production as modeled by the FASOM and FAPRI-CARD models was based on 
yield assumptions built into those two models. Specifically, the models 
assume sorghum ethanol yields of 2.71 gallons per bushel for dry mill 
plants (yields represents pure ethanol).
    As per the analysis done in the March 2010 RFS2 final rule, the 
energy consumed and emissions generated by a renewable fuel plant must 
be allocated not only to the renewable fuel produced, but also to each 
of the by-products. For grain sorghum ethanol production, this analysis 
accounts for the DG co-product use directly in the FASOM and FAPRI-CARD 
agricultural sector modeling described in the NODA. DG are considered a 
replacement animal feed and thus reduce the need to make up for the 
grain sorghum production that went into ethanol production. Since FASOM 
takes the production and use of DG into account, no further allocation 
was needed at the ethanol plant and all plant emissions are accounted 
for there.
    As described in the NODA, the GHG emissions from production of 
ethanol from grain sorghum were calculated in the same way as other 
fuels analyzed as part of the March 2010 RFS final rule. The GHG 
emissions were calculated by multiplying the amount of the different 
types of energy inputs at the grain sorghum ethanol plant (e.g., 
natural gas, coal, biogas, electricity) by emissions factors for 
production and use of those energy sources.
    The NODA described how purchased fuel and electricity use for grain 
sorghum ethanol production was based on the energy use information for 
corn ethanol production from the March 2010 RFS final rule analysis. 
These numbers reflect future plant energy use to represent plants that 
would be built to meet future requirements for increased renewable fuel 
use, as opposed to current or historic data on energy used in ethanol 
production. The numbers also reflect adjustments to account for the 
fact that converting grain sorghum to ethanol will result in slightly 
different energy use based on the difference in the grains and how they 
are processed.
    Process energy at the plant includes natural gas, coal, or biogas 
used in boilers to produce steam, in dryers, in thermal oxidizers or 
used in other production or process equipment. Process electricity is 
used for running pumps, conveyers, fans, lights, and other electrical 
equipment. Specifically related to the fuel production process, 
electricity can be produced on-site or purchased/received from an off-
site supplier.
    The emissions associated with energy used at grain sorghum ethanol 
facilities, varies significantly among plants with respect to the 
production process, type of fuel used (e.g., coal versus natural gas), 
and whether electricity used at the facility comes from the grid or is 
produced from low-GHG emissions fuels such as biogas from landfills, 
waste treatment plants and/or waste digesters. Variation also exists 
between the same type of plants using the same fuel source based on the 
design of the production process such as the technology used to 
separate the ethanol from the water, the extent to which the DG are 
dried and whether other co-products are produced. Such different 
pathways were considered for ethanol made from corn. Since for the most 
part these same production processes are available for ethanol produced 
from sorghum, our analyses considered a similar set of production 
pathways for grain sorghum ethanol production. Our focus was to 
differentiate among facilities based on key differences, namely the 
type of plant, the type of fuel used and source of electricity.
    For grain sorghum, we analyzed several combinations of different 
process technologies and fuels to determine their impacts on lifecycle 
GHG emissions. This section describes the different GHG impacts 
associated with alternative processing technology and fuel options and 
outlines specific process pathways that would be needed to meet 
different GHG threshold requirements.
    The NODA discussed how several technologies and fuel choices affect 
emissions. Process energy fuel choice has a significant impact on 
emissions from a sorghum ethanol plant. Switching from natural gas to 
biogas from landfills, waste treatment plants and/or waste digesters, 
for example, was shown to reduce lifecycle GHG emissions by 
approximately 20 percentage points. Therefore, use of such biogas 
provides a way for grain sorghum ethanol plants to reduce their GHG 
emissions. However, in order for the biogas to count as a GHG reduction 
mechanism under the grain sorghum ethanol pathways discussed in this 
rulemaking it has to come from landfills, waste treatment plants, or 
waste digesters. The reason for this is that those sources of biogas 
are assumed to have zero upstream GHG impacts.
    We received comments on the GHG emissions associated with the use 
of biogas as a process energy source, specifically for biogas from 
manure digesters. Development and operation of a manure digester system 
results in fugitive methane and other emissions, though their use also 
means emissions associated with alternative manure disposal methods are 
avoided. Putting in place a manure digester and capturing methane will 
result in a change of emissions from the existing disposal method. 
There is guidance available for calculating these emission changes.\7\ 
Based on one application of this guidance, one commenter indicated that 
the upstream GHG impacts of biogas production from a manure digester 
would be a net increase in GHG emissions. Another commenter using their 
own application of the guidance indicated that there would be a net 
reduction in upstream GHG emissions from the use of biogas from a 
manure digester.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., ``Protocol for Quantifying and Reporting the 
Performance of Anaerobic Digestion Systems for Livestock Manures,'' 
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency AgSTAR 
Program, Prepared by: Eastern Research Group, Inc., March 2011, and 
``Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol Offset Project 
Methodology for Project Type: Managing Manure with Biogas Recovery 
Systems,'' Climate Protection Partnerships Division/Climate Change 
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, August 2008, Version 1.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The differences in net emission estimates from manure digesters 
depend upon the assumptions about the alternative manure disposal 
methods. If the alternative disposal methods would not have resulted in 
significant emissions (e.g., if no methane were generated or if the 
methane generated were captured and destroyed) then the installation of 
a manure digester could

[[Page 74598]]

lead to an increase in emissions. On the other hand, if there would 
have been significant emissions from an alternative disposal method 
that would be avoided, then the installation of a manure digester would 
result in a decrease in net emissions. EPA's approach for projecting 
the net emissions from manure digesters for the sorghum lifecycle GHG 
calculations was to assume effectively zero net emissions from digester 
biogas. This assumption is consistent with our treatment of biogas 
emissions in previous RFS rulemakings.
    Given the uncertainty in the range of possible alternative manure 
disposal emissions, we feel this approach is reasonable. In order for 
biogas from manure digesters to result in positive net GHG emissions, 
the emissions from the alternative disposal method would have to be 
close to zero. This would only be the case with limited types of 
disposal in which the decomposition of the manure was mainly aerobic 
and does not result in methane emissions, such as land application. 
Although the majority of manure in the United States is handled as a 
solid, producing little CH4, the general trend in manure management is 
one of increasing use of liquid systems. The shift in manure management 
practices is due in part to a shift toward larger livestock facilities 
which typically use liquid manure management systems. Liquid systems 
have higher potential CH4 emissions than dry systems.\8\ Alternatively, 
the existing disposal methods could have emissions close to zero if 
they were capturing methane emissions and destroying them, which is not 
generally happening in current practice.\9\ It is possible that use of 
manure digesters could provide a net GHG benefit as compared to 
alternative disposal methods. However, we also do not have enough 
information to include a generic GHG offset reduction for manure 
digesters at this time. Assuming zero net emissions for present 
purposes appears reasonable given the range of possibilities. We plan 
to seek comment on the possible use of manure digester offsets as part 
of a future rulemaking and clarify their use for this and other 
pathways in Table 1 to Sec.  80.1426. Interested parties using manure 
digesters may also submit a petition under the 40 CFR 80.1416 petition 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2010, U.S. EPA Section 6.2.
    \9\ Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2010, U.S. EPA Annex 3 Section 3.10, the emissions factors used in 
calculating methane emissions from manure management do not include 
methane capture. EPA is not aware of any current or planned 
regulations that would require methane capture and destruction from 
existing manure management activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also received comments to expand the discussion to include 
``biomass energy'' that is not restricted to only biogas in the context 
of a fuel source from landfills, waste treatment plants, and waste 
digesters. The comments point to existing pathways in Table 1 to Sec.  
80.1426 that include the use of biogas or biomass. We plan to clarify 
the meaning of the term biomass through a separate rulemaking and will 
consider the comments of adding biomass as a process energy source to 
the grain sorghum ethanol pathway at that time. In the interim, we 
believe it is preferable to issue today's rule identifying two 
qualifying grain sorghum ethanol pathways without delay. Doing so 
allows producers using these pathways the opportunity to generate RINs 
while EPA evaluates adding a definition of biomass as an energy source 
for use in biofuel production.
    Another factor that influences GHG impacts from process energy use 
is the percentage of DG that are dried. If a plant is able to reduce 
the amount of DG it dries, process energy use and GHG emissions 
decrease. The impact of going from 100% dry DG to 100% wet DG is larger 
for natural gas plants (approximately a 10% reduction in overall GHG 
emissions relative to the petroleum baseline) compared to biogas plants 
because biogas plants already have low emissions from process energy.
    The NODA also discussed how production facilities that utilize 
combined heat and power (CHP) systems can also reduce GHG emissions 
relative to less efficient system configurations. The CHP system 
configuration considered in the NODA calculations were based on using a 
boiler to power a turbine generator unit that produces electricity, and 
using waste heat to produce process steam. There are provisions in our 
regulations stating that combined heat and power (CHP), also known as 
cogeneration, refers to industrial processes in which waste heat from 
the production of electricity is used for process energy in the 
renewable fuel production facility. Table 2 to Sec.  80.1426 includes 
combined heat and power such that, on a calendar year basis, at least 
90% of the thermal energy associated with ethanol production (including 
thermal energy produced at the facility and that which is derived from 
an off-site waste heat supplier), exclusive of any thermal energy used 
for the drying of distillers grains and solubles, is used to produce 
electricity prior to being used to meet the process heat requirements 
of the facility.
    We received comments that these current provisions only describe 
``top cycle'' (high pressure) CHP systems. Commenters requested that we 
also allow other types of CHP configurations (e.g., ``low pressure'' 
CHP systems). EPA recognizes that there are many different types of CHP 
configurations and that some types that do not fit our current 
regulatory provisions could have similar GHG reductions.
    Although not exhaustive, Table II-7 shows the amount of process 
fuel and electricity from the grid used at a grain sorghum ethanol 
facility for the different technology and fuel options in terms of Btu/
gal of ethanol produced.
    The energy use at dry mill ethanol plants was based on ASPEN models 
developed by USDA and updated to reflect changes in technology out to 
2022 as described in the March 2010 RFS2 final rule Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA) Chapter 1. The work done on grain ethanol production for 
the March 2010 RFS2 final rule was based on converting corn to ethanol. 
Converting grain sorghum to ethanol will result in slightly different 
energy use based on difference in the grains and how they are 
processed. The same ASPEN USDA models used for corn ethanol in the 
final rule were also developed for grain sorghum ethanol. Based on the 
numbers from USDA, a sorghum ethanol plant uses 96.3% of the thermal 
process energy of a corn ethanol plant (3.7% less), and 99.3% of the 
electrical energy (0.7% less).

[[Page 74599]]

              Table II-7--Process Fuel and Electricity Options at Grain Sorghum Ethanol Facilities
                                        [Btu/gallon of ethanol produced]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Grid
                    Fuel type and technology                        Natural gas     Biogas use      electricity
                                                                        use                             use
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Sorghum Ethanol--Dry Mill Natural Gas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No CHP, 100% Wet DG.............................................          16,449  ..............           2,235
Yes CHP, 100% Wet DG............................................          18,605  ..............             508
No CHP, 0% Wet DG...............................................          27,599  ..............           2,235
Yes CHP, 0% Wet DG..............................................          29,755  ..............             508
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Sorghum Ethanol--Dry Mill Biogas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No CHP, 100% Wet DG.............................................  ..............          16,449           2,235
Yes CHP, 100% Wet DG............................................  ..............          18,605             508
No CHP, 0% Wet DG...............................................  ..............          27,599           2,235
Yes CHP, 0% Wet DG..............................................  ..............          29,755             508
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table II-7, the difference between CHP and non-CHP 
plants is reflected in their use of different amounts of primary energy 
(natural gas or biogas) and the amount of electricity used from the 
grid. The difference in electricity used from the grid is independent 
of the quantity of dry DG. Furthermore, as the GHG calculations are 
based on the amount of fuel used times an emission factor plus the 
amount of electricity used from grid times an emissions factor, the use 
of CHP versus some other type of electricity generation system only 
matters for natural gas plants. Although less biogas would be needed if 
CHP is used versus standard electricity generation using biogas, the 
GHG emissions are the same since the emission factor for biogas (when 
it comes from landfills, waste treatment plants and/or waste digesters) 
is zero. Therefore, because the only advanced biofuel pathway we are 
adopting today for the production of grain sorghum ethanol involves use 
of biogas for on-site electricity production, we do not need to specify 
that CHP be used. We have therefore modified the final rule to instead 
specify that for the advanced biofuel grain sorghum pathway, biogas 
from landfills, waste treatment plants and/or waste digesters must be 
used for on-site electricity production, and we have provided an 
allowance for a certain amount of grid-purchased electricity that would 
still be consistent with a finding of 50% lifecycle GHG reduction as 
compared to baseline fuel. Any configuration of CHP, or a non-CHP 
system, could be used for the on-site generation of electricity using 
biogas. We have also included conforming changes to the regulatory 
registration, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, to require 
verification of the amount of grid electricity used at facilities using 
this pathway.
    The conforming changes include adding a new paragraph (f)(13) to 
Section 80.1426 describing detailed requirements for the purchase, 
measurement and use of biogas and electricity from the grid for 
facilities using the advanced biofuel grain sorghum pathway. We have 
also amended Section 80.1450 describing registration requirements for 
facilities using the advanced biofuel grain sorghum pathway. Sections 
80.1451 and 80.1454 are also amended to specify reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements for this pathway.
    The following Table II-8 shows the mean lifecycle GHG reductions 
compared to the baseline petroleum fuel for a number of different grain 
sorghum ethanol production technology pathways including natural gas 
and biogas fired plants. In the following section, we provide detailed 
analysis of the lifecycle GHG emissions for two scenarios. The first is 
for a dry mill grain sorghum ethanol plant that uses natural gas for 
process energy; the second is for a dry mill grain sorghum ethanol 
plant that uses biogas for both process energy and for on-site 
electricity production. These two scenarios were chosen as examples of 
feasible technology that a plant can use to generate either 
conventional or advanced fuel.

Table II-8--Lifecycle GHG Emission Reductions for Certain Dry Mill Grain
                       Sorghum Ethanol Facilities
                [% change compared to petroleum gasoline]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Fuel type and technology                     % Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Sorghum Ethanol--Dry Mill Natural Gas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No On-Site Electricity Production, 100% Wet DG..........             -33
On-Site Electricity Production, using 0.15 kWh                       -36
 electricity from the grid per gallon of ethanol, 100%
 Wet DG.................................................
No On-Site Electricity Production, 0% Wet DG............             -22
On-Site Electricity Production, using 0.15 kWh                       -25
 electricity from the grid per gallon of ethanol, 0% Wet
 DG.....................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Sorghum Ethanol--Dry Mill Biogas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No On-Site Electricity Production, 100% Wet DG..........             -48
On-Site Electricity Production, using 0.15 kWh                       -53
 electricity from the grid per gallon of ethanol, 100%
 Wet DG.................................................
No On-Site Electricity Production, 0% Wet DG............             -47
On-Site Electricity Production, using 0.15 kWh                       -52
 electricity from the grid per gallon of ethanol, 0% Wet
 DG.....................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 0.15 kWh was based on data in Table II-7 converted to kWh per
  gallon.

[[Page 74600]]

    The docket for this final rule provides more details on our key 
model inputs and assumptions (e.g., crop yields, biofuel conversion 
yields, and agricultural energy use). These inputs and assumptions are 
based on our analysis of peer-reviewed literature and consideration of 
recommendations of experts from within the grain sorghum and ethanol 
industries, USDA, and academic institutions.
4. Results of Lifecycle Analysis for Ethanol From Grain Sorghum (Using 
Dry Mill Natural Gas)
    Consistent with our approach for analyzing other pathways, our 
analysis for grain sorghum ethanol includes a mid-point estimate as 
well as a range of possible lifecycle GHG emission results based on 
uncertainty analysis conducted by the Agency. The graph below (Figure 
II-1) depicts the results of our analysis (including the uncertainty in 
our land use change modeling) for grain sorghum ethanol produced in a 
plant that uses natural gas and produces the current industry average 
of 92% wet DG.
    Lifecycle GHG emissions equivalent to the statutory gasoline fuel 
baseline are represented on the graph by the zero on the X-axis. The 
midpoint of the range of results is a 32% reduction in GHG emissions 
compared to the 2005 gasoline baseline.\10\ As in the case of other 
biofuel pathways analyzed as part of the March 2010 RFS2 final rule, 
the range of results shown in Figure II-1 is based on our assessment of 
uncertainty regarding the location and types of land that may be 
impacted as well as the GHG impacts associated with these land use 
changes (see Section II.B.1. for further information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 95% confidence interval around that midpoint results in 
range of a 19% reduction to a 44% reduction compared to the 2005 
gasoline fuel baseline.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE12.011

    Table II-9 breaks down by stage the lifecycle GHG emissions for a 
natural gas fired grain sorghum ethanol plant with 92% wet DG in 2022 
and the statutory 2005 gasoline baseline.\11\ Results are included 
using our mid-point estimate of land use change emissions, as well as 
with the low and high end of the 95% confidence interval. Net 
agricultural emissions include impacts related to changes in crop 
inputs, such as fertilizer, energy used in agriculture, livestock 
production and other agricultural changes in the scenarios modeled. The 
fuel production stage includes emissions from ethanol production plants 
including drying 8% of the DG. Fuel and feedstock transport includes 
emissions from transporting bushels of harvested grain sorghum from the 
farm to the ethanol production facility, as well as the emissions 
associated with transporting ethanol from the production facility to 
the fuel-blending facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Totals in the table may not sum due to rounding.

[[Page 74601]]

 Table II-9--Lifecycle GHG Emissions for Grain Sorghum Ethanol Produced
 in Dry Mill Plants That Use Natural Gas for Process Energy and Produce
                        92% Wet Distillers Grains
                              [gCO2e/mmBtu]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Grain sorghum       2005 gasoline
            Fuel type                   ethanol            baseline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Agriculture (w/o land use                 12,698
 change), Domestic and
 International..................
Land Use Change, Mean (Low/          27,620 (16,196/
 High), Domestic and                         41,903)
 International..................
Fuel Production.................              22,111              19,200
Fuel and Feedstock Transport....               3,661                   *
Tailpipe Emissions..............                 880              79,004
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total Emissions, Mean (Low/      66,971 (55,547/              98,204
     High)......................             81,254)
Midpoint Lifecycle GHG Percent                   32%
 Reduction Compared to Petroleum
 Baseline.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions included in fuel production stage.

5. Results of Lifecycle Analysis for Ethanol From Grain Sorghum (Using 
Biogas for Process Energy and On-Site Electricity Production)
    The graph below (Figure II-2) depicts the results of our analysis 
(including the uncertainty in our land use change modeling) for grain 
sorghum ethanol produced in a dry mill plant that produces 0% wet DG 
and uses biogas for process energy and for on-site production of all 
electricity other than 0.15 kWh of grid electricity per gallon of 
ethanol produced.
    Figure II-2 shows the percent difference between lifecycle GHG 
emissions for the 2005 petroleum gasoline fuel baseline and for 2022 
grain sorghum ethanol produced in a plant that dries 100% of its DG, 
uses only biogas as process energy and uses biogas to produce all 
electricity used on site except for 0.15 kWh of grid electricity per 
gallon of ethanol produced. Lifecycle GHG emissions equivalent to the 
statutory gasoline fuel baseline are represented on the graph by the 
zero on the X-axis. The midpoint of the range of results for this 
sorghum ethanol plant configuration is a 52% reduction in GHG emissions 
compared to the 2005 gasoline baseline.\12\ As in the case of other 
biofuel pathways analyzed as part of the March 2010 RFS2 final rule, 
the range of results shown in Figure II-2 is based on our assessment of 
uncertainty regarding the location and types of land that may be 
impacted as well as the GHG impacts associated with these land use 
changes (see Section II.B.1). These results justify our determination 
that sorghum ethanol produced in dry mill plants that dry any amount of 
DG and use only biogas (from landfills, waste treatment plants and/or 
waste digesters) for process energy and production of electricity used 
on site, other than 0.15 kWh of electricity from the grid per gallon of 
ethanol produced, meet the 50% lifecycle GHG reduction threshold 
required for the generation of advanced renewable fuel RINs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The 95% confidence interval around that midpoint results in 
range of a 38% reduction to a 64% reduction compared to the 2005 
gasoline fuel baseline.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 74602]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17DE12.012

    Table II-10 breaks down by stage the lifecycle GHG emissions for 
grain sorghum ethanol in 2022 produced through this pathway and the 
statutory 2005 gasoline baseline.\13\ Results are included using our 
mid-point estimate of land use change emissions, as well as with the 
low and high end of the 95% confidence interval. Net agricultural 
emissions include impacts related to changes in crop inputs, such as 
fertilizer, energy used in agriculture, livestock production and other 
agricultural changes in the scenarios modeled. Emissions from fuel 
production include emissions from ethanol production and drying 100% of 
the DG. Fuel and feedstock transport includes emissions from 
transporting bushels of harvested grain sorghum from the farm to 
ethanol production facility, as well as the emissions associated with 
transporting ethanol from the production facility to the fuel-blending 
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Totals in the table may not sum due to rounding.

 Table II-10--Lifecycle GHG Emissions for Grain Sorghum Ethanol Produced
   in Dry Mill Plants That Produce 0% Wet DG and Use Only Biogas (From
 Landfills, Waste Treatment Plants, and/or Waste Digesters) for Process
  Energy and Electricity Production, Except for 0.15 kWh of Electricity
              From the Grid per Gallon of Ethanol Produced
                              [gCO2e/mmBtu]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Grain sorghum       2005 gasoline
            Fuel type                   ethanol            baseline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Agriculture (w/o land use                 12,698  ..................
 change), Domestic and
 International..................
Land Use Change, Mean (Low/          27,620 (16,196/  ..................
 High), Domestic and                         41,903)
 International..................

[[Page 74603]]

 
Fuel Production.................               1,612              19,200
Fuel and Feedstock Transport....               4,276                   *
Tailpipe Emissions..............                 880              79,004
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total Emissions, Mean (Low/      47,086 (35,662/              98,204
     High)......................             61,369)
Midpoint Lifecycle GHG Percent                   52%
 Reduction Compared to Petroleum
 Baseline.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions included in fuel production stage.

6. Other Ethanol Processing Technologies
    In the NODA we stated our intention to address other broadly 
applicable ethanol production technologies that have the potential to 
reduce lifecycle GHG emissions through a separate rulemaking. In the 
NODA, we provided a brief description of the use of electricity that is 
derived from renewable and non-carbon sources, such as wind power, 
solar power, hydropower, biogas or biomass as power for process units 
and equipment, and capturing and sequestering CO2 emissions 
from an ethanol plant. We received comments supporting the use of 
electricity that is derived from renewable and non-carbon sources as 
power for process units and equipment. We also received comments 
supporting the use of capturing and sequestering CO2 
emissions as part of the RFS2 program. Due to the range of issues 
before us, and the fact that these issues can pertain to more than just 
the sorghum pathways, we intend to assess these technologies in a 
separate action and will consider at that time the comments received in 
response to the NODA and whether to broaden the number of grain sorghum 
ethanol pathways that may qualify for RIN generation.

C. Consideration of Lifecycle Analysis Results

1. Implications for Threshold Determinations
    As discussed above, EPA's analysis shows that, based on the mid-
point of the range of results, ethanol produced from grain sorghum 
using biogas (from landfills, waste treatment plants and/or waste 
digesters) for process heat and to produce all electricity used on-
site, other than 0.15 kWh of electricity from the grid per gallon of 
ethanol produced at a dry mill plant drying any amount of DG would meet 
the 50 percent GHG emissions reduction threshold needed to qualify as 
an advanced biofuel (D-5 RINs). Grain sorghum ethanol meets the 20% 
lifecycle GHG emissions reduction threshold for conventional biofuels 
(D-6 RINs) when natural gas or biogas is used for process energy at a 
dry mill plant, regardless of how much DG is dried. Therefore, Table 1 
to Section 80.1426 is modified to add these new pathways. Table II-11 
illustrates how these new pathways are included in the existing table.

                     Table II-11--Pathways and Applicable D Codes for Grain Sorghum Ethanol
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Production process
               Fuel type                        Feedstock                   requirements              D-Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethanol...............................  Grain Sorghum............  Dry mill process using biogas               6
                                                                    from landfills, waste
                                                                    treatment plants, and waste
                                                                    digesters, and/or natural
                                                                    gas, for process energy.
Ethanol...............................  Grain Sorghum............  Dry mill process, using only                5
                                                                    biogas from landfills, waste
                                                                    treatment plants, and waste
                                                                    digesters for process energy
                                                                    and for on-site production
                                                                    of all electricity used at
                                                                    the site other than up to
                                                                    0.15 kWh of electricity from
                                                                    the grid per gallon of
                                                                    ethanol produced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Consideration of Uncertainty
    EPA's threshold determinations for grain sorghum ethanol are based 
on the weight of evidence currently available. For this pathway, the 
evidence considered includes the mid-point estimate as well as the 
range of results based on statistical uncertainty and sensitivity 
analyses conducted by the Agency. EPA has weighed all of the evidence, 
while placing the greatest weight on the best-estimate value for the 
scenarios analyzed.
    As part of our assessment of the grain sorghum ethanol pathway, we 
have identified key areas of uncertainty in our analysis. Although 
there is uncertainty in all portions of the lifecycle modeling, we 
focused our analysis on the factors that are the most uncertain and 
have the biggest impact on the results. The indirect international 
emissions are the component of our analysis with the highest level of 
uncertainty. The type of land that is converted internationally and the 
emissions associated with this land conversion are critical issues that 
have a large impact on the GHG emissions estimates.
    Our analysis of land use change GHG emissions includes an 
assessment of uncertainty that focuses on two aspects of indirect land 
use change--the types of land converted and the GHG emissions 
associated with different types of land converted. These areas of 
uncertainty were estimated statistically using the Monte Carlo analysis 
methodology developed for the March,

[[Page 74604]]

2010 RFS2 final rule.\14\ Figure II-1 and Figure II-2 show the results 
of our statistical uncertainty assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Monte Carlo analysis is described in EPA (2010a), 
Section 2.4.4.2.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The docket for this final rule provides more details on all aspects 
of our analysis of grain sorghum ethanol.

D. Other Comments Received

    We received other comments that suggested that if we are to 
calculate certain indirect emissions and costs of renewable fuels 
(e.g., land use, and energy used for extraction), the same should be 
included for petroleum fuels that are being displaced. These comments 
were similar to comments we responded to in the March, 2010 final RFS 
rule. Commenters did not provide any new information or data that would 
cause us to re-evaluate our methodology that was described in more 
detail in the March, 2010 RFS2 final rule. Therefore, we are not making 
the suggested modifications to our lifecycle analysis at this time.
    We also received comments regarding the situation where a facility 
could be characterized under two or more separate pathways. For example 
a facility co-processing different feedstocks, like corn and sorghum, 
and using two different process energy sources simultaneously, like 
natural gas and biogas with on-site electricity production. The 
commenters asked if different RINs could be produced based on the 
different pathways represented by the different feedstocks and process 
energy sources used. In response, we note that 40 CFR Sec.  
80.1426(f)(3)(i)-(vi) addresses a number of options for the generation 
of RINs when renewable fuel production can be described by two or more 
pathways. In situations not covered by the regulations, parties may 
submit a petition to EPA pursuant to 80.1416.

E. Summary

    Based on our GHG lifecycle analysis as discussed above, today's 
rule includes two pathways for ethanol produced from grain sorghum 
feedstocks. One pathway will allow the generation of D code 6 RINs for 
grain sorghum ethanol produced by a natural gas or biogas fired dry 
mill facility that dries any amount of DG. A second pathway will allow 
producers of grain sorghum ethanol to generate advanced (D code 5) RINs 
if they use only biogas for process energy and on-site electricity 
production and use no more than 0.15 kWh of electricity from the grid 
per gallon of ethanol produced. In both cases, of course, RINs may only 
be generated if the fuel meets other definitional criteria for 
renewable fuel (e.g., produced from renewable biomass as defined in the 
March, 2010 RFS2 final rule regulations, and used to reduce or replace 
the quantity of fossil fuel present in transportation fuel, heating oil 
or jet fuel). In order to qualify for RIN generation, the fuel must 
meet all other requirements specified in the Clean Air Act and the RFS 
regulations at 40 CFR part 80 Subpart M. Parties that produce ethanol 
through either pathway must do so in a matter that is consistent with 
current regulations. Failure to do so may result in invalid RINs and 
penalties.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
The corrections, clarifications, and modifications to the March, 2010 
RFS2 final regulations contained in this rule are within the scope of 
the information collection requirements submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for the March, 2010 RFS2 final regulations.
    OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained 
in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 80, subpart M under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and 
has assigned OMB control numbers 2060-0637 and 2060-0640. The OMB 
control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR 
part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small 
entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will not 
impose any new requirements on small entities. Rather, we expect that 
this rule may have a positive impact on entities that would now have 
the opportunity to generate advanced RINs, where they may have been 
unable to prior to this rule. The relatively minor corrections and 
modifications this rule makes to the March, 2010 RFS2 final regulations 
do not impact small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
We have determined that this action will not result in expenditures of 
$100 million or more for the above parties and thus, this rule is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. It only applies to 
gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuel producers, importers, distributors 
and marketers.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action only applies to 
gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuel producers, importers, distributors 
and marketers. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 
action.

[[Page 74605]]

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It applies to 
gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuel producers, importers, distributors 
and marketers. This action does not impose any enforceable duties on 
communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 
does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, 
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O. has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to 
E.O. 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard 
intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    ``This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.''

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) 
establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main 
provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable 
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their 
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or 
low-income populations because it does not affect the level of 
protection provided to human health or the environment. These 
amendments would not relax the control measures on sources regulated by 
the RFS regulations and therefore would not cause emissions increases 
from these sources.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it 
is published in the Federal Register. EPA will submit a report 
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the 
United States prior to publication of the rule the Federal Register. 
This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

IV. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for the rule finalized today can be found in 
section 211 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545. Additional support 
for today's rule comes from Section 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 
U.S.C. 7414, 7542, and 7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Agriculture, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, 
Diesel fuel, Energy, Forest and forest products, Fuel additives, 
Gasoline, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, 
Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 30, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 80 is 
amended as follows:

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521(1), 7545 and 7601(a).

0
2. Section 80.1426 (f)(1) is amended by adding two new entries in Table 
1 for ``Ethanol'' to the end of the table and adding paragraph (f)(13) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  80.1426  How are RINs generated and assigned to batches of 
renewable fuel by renewable fuel producers or importers?

* * * * *
    (f) * * *

         Table 1 to Sec.   80.1426--Applicable D Codes for Each Fuel Pathway for Use in Generating RINs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Production process
               Fuel type                        Feedstock                   requirements              D Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Ethanol...............................  Grain Sorghum............  Dry mill process using biogas               6
                                                                    from landfills, waste
                                                                    treatment plants, and/or
                                                                    waste digesters, and/or
                                                                    natural gas, for process
                                                                    energy.

[[Page 74606]]

 
Ethanol...............................  Grain Sorghum............  Dry mill process, using only                5
                                                                    biogas from landfills, waste
                                                                    treatment plants, and/or
                                                                    waste digesters for process
                                                                    energy and for on-site
                                                                    production of all
                                                                    electricity used at the site
                                                                    other than up to 0.15 kWh of
                                                                    electricity from the grid
                                                                    per gallon of ethanol
                                                                    produced, calculated on a
                                                                    per batch basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (13) In order for facilities to satisfy the requirements of the 
advanced biofuel grain sorghum pathway all of the following conditions 
(in addition to other applicable requirements) apply.
    (i) The quantity of electricity used at the site that is purchased 
from the grid must be measured and recorded by continuous metering.
    (ii) All electricity used on-site that is not purchased from the 
grid must be produced on-site from biogas from landfills, waste 
treatment plants, and/or waste digesters.
    (iii) For biogas directly transported to the facility without being 
placed in a commercial distribution system, all of the following 
conditions must be met:
    (A) The producer has entered into a written contract for the 
procurement of biogas that specifies the volume of biogas, its heat 
content, and that the biogas must be derived from a landfill, waste 
treatment plant and/or waste digester.
    (B) The volume of biogas was sold to the renewable fuel production 
facility, and to no other facility.
    (C) The volume and heat content of biogas injected into the 
pipeline and the volume of gas used at the renewable fuel production 
facility are measured by continuous metering.
    (iv) Reserved
    (v) For biogas that has been gathered, processed and injected into 
a common carrier pipeline, all of the following conditions must be met:
    (A) The producer has entered into a written contract for the 
procurement of biogas that specifies a specific volume of biogas, with 
a specific heat content, and that the biogas must be derived from a 
landfill, waste treatment plant and/or waste digester.
    (B) The volume of biogas was sold to the renewable fuel production 
facility, and to no other facility.
    (C) The volume of biogas that is withdrawn from the pipeline is 
withdrawn in a manner and at a time consistent with the transport of 
fuel between the injection and withdrawal points.
    (D) The volume and heat content of biogas injected into the 
pipeline and the volume of gas used at the renewable fuel production 
facility are measured by continuous metering.
    (E) The common carrier pipeline into which the biogas is placed 
ultimately serves the producer's renewable fuel facility.
    (vi) No party relied upon the contracted volume of biogas for the 
creation of RINs.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 80.1450 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(1)(ix) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  80.1450  What are the registration requirements under the RFS 
program?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ix)(A) For a producer of ethanol from grain sorghum or a foreign 
ethanol producer making product from grain sorghum and seeking to have 
it sold as renewable fuel after addition of denaturant, provide a plan 
that has been submitted and accepted by U.S. EPA that includes the 
following information:
    (1) Locations from which the biogas used at the facility was 
produced or extracted.
    (2) Name of suppliers of all biogas used at the facility.
    (3) An affidavit from each biogas supplier stating its intent to 
supply biogas to the renewable fuel producer or foreign ethanol 
producer, the quantity and energy content of the biogas that it intends 
to provide to the renewable fuel producer or foreign ethanol producer, 
and that the biogas will be derived solely from landfills, waste 
treatment plants, and/or waste digesters.
    (4) If the producer intends to generate advanced biofuel RINs, 
estimates of the total amount of electricity used from the grid, the 
total amount of ethanol produced, and a calculation of the amount of 
electricity used from the grid per gallon of ethanol produced.
    (5) If the producer intends to generate advanced biofuel RINs, a 
description of how the facility intends to demonstrate and document 
that not more than 0.15 kWh of grid electricity is used per gallon of 
ethanol produced, calculated on a per batch basis, at the time of RIN 
generation.
    (B) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
4. Section 80.1451 is amended by redesignating paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(S) 
as (b)(1)(ii)(T) and adding a new paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(S) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  80.1451  What are the reporting requirements under the RFS 
program?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (S) Producers of advanced biofuel using grain sorghum shall report 
all of the following:
    (1) The total amount of electricity that is purchased from the grid 
and used at the site, based on metering, in kWh.
    (2) Total amount of ethanol produced.
    (3) Calculation of the amount of grid electricity used at the site 
per gallon of ethanol produced in each batch.
    (4) Each batch number as specified in Sec.  80.1452(b).
    (5) Reference ID for documents required by Sec.  80.1454(k)(2)(D).
* * * * *

0
5. Section 80.1454(k) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  80.1454  What are the recordkeeping requirements under the RFS 
program?

* * * * *
    (k)(1) biogas and electricity in pathways involving feedstocks 
other than grain sorghum. A renewable fuel producer that generates RINs 
for biogas or electricity produced from renewable biomass (renewable 
electricity) for fuels that are used for transportation pursuant to 
Sec.  80.1426(f)(1) and (11), or that uses process heat from biogas to 
generate RINs for renewable fuel pursuant to Sec.  80.1426(f)(12) shall 
keep all of the following additional records:
    (i) Contracts and documents memorializing the sale of biogas or 
renewable electricity for use as transportation fuel relied upon in 
Sec.  80.1426(f)(10), Sec.  80.1426(f)(11), or for use of biogas for 
use as process heat to make renewable fuel as relied upon in Sec.  
80.1426(f)(12), and the transfer of title of the biogas or renewable 
electricity

[[Page 74607]]

and all associated environmental attributes from the point of 
generation to the facility which sells or uses the fuel for 
transportation purposes.
    (ii) Documents demonstrating the volume and energy content of 
biogas, or kilowatts of renewable electricity, relied upon under Sec.  
80.1426(f)(10) that was delivered to the facility which sells or uses 
the fuel for transportation purposes.
    (iii) Documents demonstrating the volume and energy content of 
biogas, or kilowatts of renewable electricity, relied upon under Sec.  
80.1426(f)(11), or biogas relied upon under Sec.  80.1426(f)(12), that 
was placed into the common carrier pipeline (for biogas) or 
transmission line (for renewable electricity).
    (iv) Documents demonstrating the volume and energy content of 
biogas, or kilowatts of renewable electricity, relied upon under Sec.  
80.1426(f)(12) at the point of distribution.
    (v) Affidavits from the biogas or renewable electricity producer 
and all parties that held title to the biogas or renewable electricity 
confirming that title and environmental attributes of the biogas or 
renewable electricity relied upon under Sec.  80.1426(f)(10) and
    (11) were used for transportation purposes only, and that the 
environmental attributes of the biogas relied upon under Sec.  
80.1426(f)(12) were used for process heat at the renewable fuel 
producer's facility, and for no other purpose. The renewable fuel 
producer shall create and/or obtain these affidavits at least once per 
calendar quarter.
    (vi) The biogas or renewable electricity producer's Compliance 
Certification required under Title V of the Clean Air Act.
    (vii) The biogas or renewable electricity producer's Compliance 
Certification required under Title V of the Clean Air Act.
    (viii) Such other records as may be requested by the Administrator.
    (2) Biogas and electricity in pathways involving grain sorghum as 
feedstock.
    (i) Contracts and documents memorializing the purchase and sale of 
biogas and the transfer of biogas from the point of generation to the 
ethanol production facility.
    (ii) If the advanced biofuel pathway is used, documents 
demonstrating the total kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity used from 
the grid, and the total kWh of grid electricity used on a per gallon of 
ethanol basis, pursuant to Sec.  80.1426(f)(13).
    (iii) Affidavits from the producer of biogas used at the facility, 
and all parties that held title to the biogas, confirming that title 
and environmental attributes of the biogas relied upon under Sec.  
80.1426(f)(13) were used for producing ethanol at the renewable fuel 
production facility and for no other purpose. The renewable fuel 
producer shall obtain these affidavits at least once per calendar 
quarter.
    (iv) The biogas producer's Compliance Certification required under 
Title V of the Clean Air Act.
    (v) Such other records as may be requested by the Administrator.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-30100 Filed 12-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P