thin stillage anaerobic digester for process energy with combined heat
and power (CHP) producing excess electricity of at least 40% of the
purchased natural gas energy of the facility (the proposed ``advanced
butanol pathway'').
    GEVO Incorporated submitted a petition requesting authorization to
generate D-code 5 RINs for fuel produced through the GEVO butanol
pathway. A petition is required because the proposed process utilizes a
high yield butanol fermentation process that is different from those
analyzed as part of the RFS2 corn ethanol pathways, and does not use
the approved advanced technologies shown in Table 2 to section 80.1426
of the RFS2 regulations.
    EPA's evaluation of the lifecycle GHG emissions of the advanced
butanol pathway under this petition request is consistent with EISA's
applicable requirements, including the definition of lifecycle GHG
emissions and threshold evaluation requirements. It was based on
information regarding GEVO's production process that was submitted
under a claim of Confidential Business Information (CBI) by GEVO on
April 11, 2011. The information provided included the mass and energy
balances necessary for EPA to evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions of
the advanced butanol pathway.
    The lifecycle GHG emissions of fuel produced pursuant to the
advanced butanol pathway were determined as follows:
    Feedstock production--The advanced butanol pathway uses corn starch
as a feedstock. Corn starch is one of the feedstocks already listed in
Table 1 to section 80.1426 of the RFS2 regulations. Since corn starch
has already been evaluated as part of the RFS2 final rule, no new
feedstock production modeling was required.
    The FASOM and FAPRI models were used to analyze the GHG impacts of
the feedstock production portion of the fuel's lifecycle. The same
FASOM and FAPRI results representing the emissions from an increase in
corn production that were generated as part of the RFS2 final rule
analysis of the existing corn butanol pathways were used in this
analysis of the advanced butanol pathway. These results represent
agriculture/feedstock production emissions for a certain quantity of
corn produced. For the RFS2 analysis, this was roughly 960 million
bushels of corn used to produce 2.6 billion gallons of fuel. We have
calculated GHG emissions from feedstock production for that amount of
corn. EPA does not believe the advanced butanol process for converting
corn into butanol will materially affect the total amount of corn used
for biofuels and modeled as part of the RFS2 final rule. Based on
information provided by industry, the technologies to produce corn
butanol are primarily being targeted at retrofitting existing corn
ethanol facilities, where the infrastructure to produce renewable fuels
already exists and the capital expenditures would be relatively small.
Therefore, the existing agricultural sector modeling analyses for corn
as a feedstock remain valid for use in estimating the lifecycle impact
of renewable fuel produced using the advanced butanol pathway. The
Agency is seeking comment on whether there is any research to suggest
that converting corn into an advanced butanol pathway would materially
affect the total amount of corn used.
    GEVO provided, as part of the information claimed CBI, their
process yield in terms of gallons of fuel produced per bushel of corn.
Based on the data, GEVO's process yield is slightly more efficient than
the pathways modeled as part of the RFS2 rulemaking. Therefore,
compared to the corn butanol pathways already analyzed, the GEVO
process results in 0.93% more Btus of fuel produced for the same amount
of corn feedstock.
    Fuel production--The fuel production method included in this
advanced butanol pathway involves the production of butanol from corn
starch in a dry mill. The amount and type of energy used in this
analysis is different than production methods that were analyzed under
the final rule. While there were slight differences in the total amount
of natural gas and electricity used in this analysis, the main
difference was the use of biogas and production of excess electricity.
To analyze the GHG impacts of the advanced butanol pathway, EPA
utilized the same approach that was used to determine the impacts of
processes in the RFS2 corn butanol pathways.
    The amount and type of energy used was taken from GEVO's mass
balance & energy balance submitted to EPA. GEVO submitted energy data
on natural gas and biogas (in Btus) and electricity (in kWhs) inputs,
as well as gallons of fuel produced. Biogas and natural gas are used in
combination, while the RFS2 corn butanol analyses only considered
natural gas or biogas used independently, not in combination.
    The emissions from the use of energy were calculated by multiplying
the amount of energy by emission factors for fuel production and
combustion, based on the same method and factors used in the RFS2 final
rulemaking. The emission factors for the different fuel types are from
GREET and were based on assumed carbon contents of the different
process fuels.
    One area where EPA is soliciting comments is on the most
appropriate energy content assumption to use for butanol (lower heating
value). As part of this analysis, EPA used the GREET value for the
energy content of butanol,

which is 99,837 Btus per gallon.\49\ Differences in the measurement of
the energy content of butanol can occur for a number of reasons
including variations amongst isomers (t-butanol, n-butanol, isobutanol,
and sec-butanol), and differences in testing methodologies. EPA is
seeking comment on whether there are any reasons why EPA should change
its assumptions and use a different energy content of butanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The GREET value is based on: Guibet, J.-C., 1997,
Carburants et Moteurs: Technologies, Energie, Environnement,
Publication de l'Institut Fran[ccedil]ais du P[eacute]trole, ISBN 2-
7108-0704-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RFS2 corn butanol pathways included an estimate for DDGs co-
product production which we similarly applied to the advanced butanol
production process. Since DDGs impact the agricultural markets,
production of DDGs was already included as part of the FASOM and FAPRI
modeling already described in the feedstock production section, above.
Thus no additional co-product credits for the DDGs are applied for the
fuel production stage of the analysis.
    The advanced butanol production process analyzed here also results
in excess electricity production. As per the pathway description the
process produces excess electricity of at least 40% of the purchased
natural gas energy of the facility. The onsite emissions of the
electricity production are accounted for in the facility natural gas
and biogas use. The co-product credit of the excess electricity is
accounted for by assuming the electricity offsets average grid
electricity production and results in associated emission reductions.
    The estimated production emissions from the advanced butanol
process are shown below in Table V.F.-1.

Table V.F.-1--Fuel Production Emissions for the Advanced Butanol Process
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 GEVO isobutanol  (g CO2-
             Fuel production source                     eq./mmBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Site Emissions..............................                   15,273
Upstream (natural gas and electricity                              2,424
 production)...................................
Emissions Credit from Offset Electricity.......                  -17,448
                                                ------------------------
  Total Fuel Production Emissions..............                      249
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fuel and feedstock distribution--We used the same feedstock
distribution emissions assumption considered for corn butanol under the
RFS2 final rule for the advanced butanol pathway corn feedstock. The
fuel type, butanol, and hence the fuel distribution for butanol, was
already considered as part of the RFS2 final rule. Therefore, the
existing feedstock and fuel distribution lifecycle GHG impacts for corn
butanol were applied to the advanced butanol pathway analysis.
    Use of the fuel--The advanced butanol pathway produces a fuel that
was analyzed as part of the RFS2 final rule. Thus, the fuel combustion
emissions calculated as part of the RFS2 final rule for butanol were
applied to our analysis of the advanced butanol pathway.
    The advanced butanol fuel was then compared to baseline petroleum
gasoline, using the same value for baseline gasoline as in the RFS2
final rule analysis. The results of the analysis indicate that the
advance butanol pathway would result in a GHG emissions reduction of
51.3% compared to the gasoline fuel it would replace.
    Based on our LCA, we are proposing to add a new pathway to Table 1
to section 80.1426 that includes butanol from corn starch using the
butanol process described here as an advanced biofuel (D-5 RINs). EPA
invites comments on the assumptions used in this analysis.
    Table V.F.-2 below breaks down by stage the lifecycle GHG emissions
for the RFS2 corn butanol pathway, the advanced butanol pathway and the
2005 gasoline baseline. This table demonstrates the contribution of
each stage in the fuel pathway and its relative significance in terms
of GHG emissions.

                  Table V.F.-2--Lifecycle GHG Emissions for the Advanced Butanol Pathway, 2022
                                               [Kg CO2-eq./mmBtu]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                RFS2 corn
                                                            ethanol, natural                        RFS2 2005
                         Fuel type                            gas fired dry     GEVO butanol        gasoline
                                                              mill 63% dry                          baseline
                                                                  DDGS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Domestic Agriculture (w/o land use change)............                 4                 4  ................
Net International Agriculture (w/o land use change).......                12                12  ................
Domestic Land Use Change..................................                -4                -4  ................
International Land Use Change, Mean (Low/High)............        32 (21/46)                31  ................
Fuel Production...........................................                28                 0                19
Fuel and Feedstock Transport..............................                 4                 4                 *
Tailpipe Emissions........................................                 1                 1                79
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total Emissions, Mean.................................        77 (66/91)                48                98
% Reduction...............................................              -21%              -51%  ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions included in fuel production stage.

    Table V.F.-3 lists the proposed D-Codes by fuel type (butanol),
considering the feedstock (corn starch) and different production
process requirements.

                                   Table V.F.-3--Proposed D Codes for Butanol
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Production process
            Fuel type                          Feedstock                     requirements             D-Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butanol..........................  Corn starch.....................  Fermentation; dry mill                    6
                                                                      using natural gas,
                                                                      biomass, or biogas for
                                                                      process energy.
Butanol..........................  Corn starch.....................  Fermentation; dry mill                    5
                                                                      using natural gas and
                                                                      biogas from on-site thin
                                                                      stillage anaerobic
                                                                      digester for process
                                                                      energy w/CHP producing
                                                                      excess electricity of at
                                                                      least 40% of the purchased
                                                                      natural gas energy used by
                                                                      the facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Butanol, Biobutanol, and Volatility Considerations
    Butanol is a flammable colorless liquid that is used as a fuel and
as an industrial solvent. Butanol is composed of the chemical elements
hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. It can be made from petroleum or
renewable biomass, such as corn, grasses, agricultural waste and other
renewable sources. It can be used in internal combustion engines as an
additive to gasoline and is currently registered under the Fuel and
Fuel Additives Registration System (FFARS) for use at up to 12 volume
percent. A higher blend level would require a new FFARS registration
that would include meeting Tier 1 and Tier 2 health effects testing
requirements. Biobutanol is the common name for butanol made from
renewable sources.
    There has been an increased interest in the use of biobutanol as a
direct result of the requirements for increased use of renewable fuel
volumes, adopted in EISA 2007. These provisions require an increase in
the use of renewable fuels, with 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel
to be used in the U.S. by 2022. Parties required to meet these
standards are interested in cost effective and practical ways to
satisfy the standards and meet the performance needs of the vehicles
and engines. Biobutanol is one attractive option because of its higher
energy density, lower blending vapor pressure, and lower heat of
vaporization in comparison to ethanol, as well as the fact that it can
be distributed as a gasoline blend throughout the fungible gasoline
distribution system.
    The Clean Air Act (section 211(h)(4)) requires EPA to adopt
regulations limiting the volatility of gasoline during the summer
months, when ozone is of most concern, including a one pound per square
inch (psi) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) increase in the volatility limit
for blends of gasoline containing 9-10% ethanol (E10). This allowance
for a 1 psi increase in allowable volatility is commonly called the 1
psi waiver.
    EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27 adopt RVP standards that apply to
the gasoline at all points in the distribution system, including the
retail outlet. Under the provisions for the 1 psi waiver, blends of
gasoline that contain from 9 volume percent to 10 volume percent
ethanol are allowed to have volatility 1 psi higher than otherwise
would be allowed (40 CFR 80.27(d)(2)). The chemical characteristics of
ethanol are such that blends of gasoline with less than 9 volume
percent to 10 volume percent ethanol would still have a significant
increase in volatility. Thus the restriction on the 1 psi waiver to
blends that have 9 volume percent to 10 volume percent ethanol has the
effect of prohibiting the blending of E10 with other gasoline/renewable
fuel blends at any point in the gasoline distribution system (wholesale
or retail) in conventional gasoline areas during the summer control
season. Blends of E10 gasoline and gasoline that is not E10 would have
less than 9 volume percent or greater than 10 volume percent ethanol,
would have a resulting increase in volatility compared to E0, but would
not have the 1 psi waiver to allow for such an increase. This increase
would lead to an RVP above the allowable limit, unless a sub-RVP
gasoline blendstock was used. The practical effect is a prohibition on
commingling of E10 and gasoline blends other than E10.
    Under the current regulations, EPA applies the RVP standard to the
commingled mixture as a whole, not to the components of the commingled
mixture. Once the ethanol and non-ethanol blends are mixed, the
commingled mixture is treated as the gasoline that is tested and
compared to the RVP standard. A single RVP value is determined by
testing the volatility of the commingled mixture, and this is compared
to the standard. If the mixture has from 9 volume percent to 10 volume
percent ethanol, then the 1 psi waiver applies to the mixture. If the
mixture has a different percentage of ethanol, whether lower or higher,
then the 1 psi waiver does not apply to the mixture.
    This avoids a situation where there is an overall increase in
volatility because of the commingling of E10 and gasoline that is not
E10. As discussed below, the chemical characteristics of ethanol and
the nonlinear nature of the volatility increase associated with varying
volumes of ethanol, mean that mixing E10 gasoline with gasoline that is
not E10 typically results in a net overall increase in emissions--the
mixture has a higher volatility and emissions than the separate
gasolines had on average before they were mixed.
    Several parties have identified this as an obstacle that currently
inhibits the opportunity for biobutanol to enter the commercial market.
The primary issue is application of the RVP regulations at the final
point of fuel dispensing, when the biobutanol (Bu) and the ethanol
blends would be mixed, that is in a storage tank at the retail station.
When a butanol product that complies with the RVP standards prior to
commingling (e.g., a complying Bu12 blend) is commingled with a
compliant E10 in underground storage tanks at fuel dispensing
facilities, the resulting mix generally would exceed the applicable RVP
standard as EPA's RVP regulations currently apply the standard. Certain
fuels, including renewable biofuels such as butanol, however, do not
have a net negative impact on RVP when blended with E10 at wholesale or
retail. That is, the RVP and related emissions of the commingled blend
of butanol and ethanol is no higher than the average RVP if the fuels
had never been commingled. Thus, in these kinds of circumstances it may
be appropriate to adopt a modified approach to applying the RVP
standard to permit the commingling of complying E10 blends with
complying butanol blends at wholesale and retail, as there is no
overall degradation of RVP and the air quality impacts compared to what
would occur if they were not blended.
    Today, the agency is providing some additional background on this
issue and requesting information for use in deciding whether EPA can
and should modify its RVP regulations as discussed below. Specifically,
we are inviting comment on the ability of regulated parties to comply
with the existing regulations by segregating biobutanol blends from
ethanol blends and whether there is a need to change the regulations.
We are also seeking comment on an alternative approach to applying the
RVP standards to a commingled mixture of E10 with biobutanol or other
approved gasoline additives, where the additives have

characteristics such that there is no net adverse emissions effect from
the commingling. We are inviting comments as to whether the RVP
standards can and should be applied such that the commingled mixture of
E10 and specified blends of gasoline additives such as biobutanol is
treated as complying with the RVP standard as long as the components of
that mixture complied with the RVP standard prior to the commingling.
This approach would provide a limited modification to how the RVP
standards are applied, and the modification would apply for only
certain fuel mixtures--those where the overall or net volatility of the
commingled mixture is no higher than the weighted average of the
original blends themselves, such that there is no adverse impact on
emissions from the mixing compared to what would have occurred without
such mixing. In order to assist parties in preparing comments, EPA is
providing some additional background regarding the RVP program in the
following paragraphs.
Background and History of Volatility Regulations
    Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) is the most common measure of gasoline
volatility under ambient conditions. In 1989, EPA began reducing
gasoline volatility by limiting its RVP (54 FR 11868, March 22, 1989)
(40 CFR 80.27). Due to the presence of gasoline in certain markets
mixed with about 10 volume percent ethanol (known as gasohol at the
time), and because blending an alcohol into gasoline increases the
volatility of the final product, EPA provided an additional 1 psi
allowance for such blends. In the absence of the 1 psi allowance, a
special blend stock would have been required for such blends to comply
with the RVP standards and such sub-RVP blendstocks did not exist at
the time. EPA imposed the RVP standards at all points in the gasoline
distribution system, i.e., anywhere gasoline is sold, supplied, offered
for sale or supply or transported, including service stations, refinery
shipping, tanks, importer shipping tanks, pipeline and bulk terminals
and plants. (40 CFR 80.28) (1989). In 1990, the agency promulgated
additional regulations that further lowered the RVP standards. (55 FR
23658, June 11, 1990). EPA continued to provide both the 1.0 psi
allowance to fuel blends containing about 10 volume percent ethanol,
(40 CFR 80.27) (1990), and the requirement that RVP standards applied
at all points in the distribution system.
    Congress largely codified the approach taken in EPA's RVP
regulations by adding a new section 211(h) in the 1990 CAA amendments.
Section 211(h)(1) requires EPA to set the maximum RVP standard during
the high ozone season as 9.0 psi. EPA was to ``promulgate regulations
making it unlawful for any person during the high ozone season to sell,
offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or
introduce into commerce gasoline with a Reid Vapor Pressure in excess
of 9.0 pounds per square inch (psi).'' Lower RVP standards could be set
for ozone nonattainment areas. See Clean Air Act section 211(h)(1).
Section 211(h)(2) addresses the RVP standard that apply in attainment
areas, and sets the standard at 9.0 psi for attainment areas with
authority for EPA to set a more stringent RVP level under certain
circumstances. In section 211(h)(2), Congress allowed a 1-psi waiver
for E10 gasoline, stating: ``For fuel blends containing gasoline and 10
percent denatured anhydrous ethanol, the Reid vapor pressure limitation
under this subsection shall be one pound per square inch (psi) greater
than the applicable Reid vapor pressure limitations established under
paragraph (1).'' Additionally, Congress enacted a conditional defense
against liability for violations of the RVP level allowed under the 1
psi waiver by stating that ``[p]rovided; however, that a distributor,
blender, marketer, reseller, carrier, retailer, or wholesale purchaser-
consumer shall be deemed to be in full compliance with the provisions
of this subsection and the regulations promulgated there under if it
can demonstrate that--(A) the gasoline portion of the blend complies
with the Reid vapor pressure limitations promulgated pursuant to this
subsection; (B) the ethanol portion of the blend does not exceed its
waiver condition under subsection (f)(4) of this section; and (C) no
additional alcohol or other additive has been added to increase the
Reid Vapor Pressure of the ethanol portion of this blend.'' Section
211(h)(4).
    In a 1991 rulemaking, EPA modified the RVP regulations to conform
to the 1990 amendments (56 FR 64704, December 12, 1991). These
regulations addressed the RVP standards in attainment areas, required
the use of denatured anhydrous ethanol as a specific condition for the
1-psi waiver for fuel blends containing gasoline and from 9 volume
percent to 10 volume percent ethanol, and included a new defense
against liability for violations of the RVP standards for such fuel
blends. We made no changes to the requirement that the RVP standards
applied at all points in the distribution system.
What modification is EPA considering to the application of the RVP
standards to certain fuel blends?
    Gasoline and ethanol are mixed or blended after the refining
process. The practice of blending ethanol with gasoline increases the
RVP of the resulting blend by approximately 1.0 psi. It is a non-linear
relationship, most of the volatility increase occurs after just a few
percent of ethanol have been added, with the volatility increasing more
slowly as the gasoline ethanol blend increases to 10 volume percent.
Above 10 volume percent the volatility generally does not increase any
more, and at even higher levels of ethanol the volatility starts to
decrease again. As explained above, section 211(h)(4) provides a 1-psi
waiver for fuel blends containing gasoline from 9 volume percent to 10
volume percent ethanol. The absence of such a waiver would have
required the creation of a production and distribution network for sub-
9.0 psi RVP gasoline, to offset the increase in volatility associated
with blending ethanol into the gasoline. At the time the costs of
producing and distributing an additional grade of this type of fuel,
especially in consideration of the low volumes of fuel being blended
with ethanol at the time, would have likely been prohibitive and
resulted in the termination of the availability of ethanol in the
marketplace. Thus, the 1-psi waiver facilitated the participation of
ethanol in the transportation fuel industry while also limiting
gasoline volatility resulting from ethanol blending.
    But the RVP levels of gasoline actually used by consumers are
dependent on the mixture of alcohol blends and gasoline that are
commingling in either vehicle or storage tanks. Depending on the
mixture, the resulting RVP level could be significantly higher than the
average volatility of the fuels prior to the commingling. This is
because the volatility increase when ethanol is added to gasoline is
non-linear, with a large increase with the first few percent and then
slowly tapering off as the concentration increases (see Illustration
V.F.-4). In other words, mixing E10 and EO gasoline results in a net
increase in the volatility of the gasoline mixture, compared to the
average volatility that would occur absent such mixing. For example,
2000 gallons of 10 psi E10 added to a service station tank with 8000
gallons of 9.0 psi E0 would result in 10,000 gallons of fuel with a
volatility of approximately 10 psi. However if the fuels had not been
mixed, the average volatility of the 10000 gallons would

have been 9.2 psi. The emissions associated with the commingled mixture
(10000 gallons at 10 psi) would be significantly higher than the
emissions associated with the two separate blends of 2000 gallons at 10
psi and 8000 gallons at 9 psi. The commingling thus results in an
adverse environmental impact compared to what would occur absent the
commingling. EPA's current RVP regulations address this adverse
emissions impact by applying the RVP standard to the commingled mixture
as a single fuel. In this case the commingled mixture has an RVP of 10
psi. The 1 psi waiver does not apply as the mixture is now 2% ethanol,
not from 9 volume percent to 10 volume percent ethanol. The commingled
mixture thus would not comply with the 9.0 psi RVP standard,
effectively prohibiting such commingling.
    As discussed earlier, the EPAct 2005 and EISA2007 mandated
increased volumes of renewable fuel for use in gasoline. This has
resulted in the increased use of ethanol. E10 is now present in nearly
all gasoline sold in the country. Recently, EPA granted a waiver from
the substantially similar requirements under section 211(f)(4) for the
use of E15 blends in MY2001 and newer light-duty vehicles (See 75 FR
68094, November 4, 2010 and 76 FR 4662, January 26, 2011). EPA
interpreted section 211(h) as not extending the 1 psi waiver to such
blends with ethanol levels above 10%. Several companies are also
developing and planning on introducing biobutanol into commerce. The
characteristics of butanol are such that it could be beneficial with
respect to volatility and vehicle evaporative emission performance. For
example, 2000 gallons of 10 psi E10 added to a service station tank
with 8000 gallons of 9.0 psi Bu12 would result in 10000 gallons of fuel
with an RVP of 9.2 psi. The RVP of the commingled blend would be the
same as the average of the separate blends if they had never been
commingled. There is no adverse emissions impact from the commingling
of the E10 and Bu12 blends. However the 1-psi waiver would not be
applicable because the resulting blend no longer contains from 9 volume
percent to 10 volume percent ethanol. The RVP level for the resulting
blend would also be higher than the maximum RVP standard of 9.0 psi,
making the commingled blend noncomplying with the RVP standard. However
the available data indicates that commingling of biobutanol blends with
ethanol blends would not result in any net increase in gasoline
volatility. This is because biobutanol blends and gasoline containing
from 9 volume percent to 10 volume percent ethanol blend linearly from
a volatility perspective, resulting in no net increase in volatility
compared to what would occur without the blending. This means that
there would be no net degradation in environmental performance, as
indicated in Illustration V.F.-4, below.
    We are inviting comment on an alternative approach to applying the
RVP standard to the gasoline that results from commingling of E10 and
certain other products like biobutanol. We are inviting comment as to
whether the RVP standards could be applied to the commingled blend such
that the commingled blend would be considered in compliance as long as
the separate components of the commingled product were in compliance
with the RVP standards prior to commingling. In effect the RVP standard
would be applied to the commingled mixture by treating it as if it
still contained two separate products, with each product required to
comply with the RVP standard separately. This approach would be
somewhat artificial but would allow for the commingling of specified
blends of fuels, such as biobutanol, with E10 where the resulting
commingled mixture does not result in a net increase in average RVP and
associated emissions. This would provide more flexibility in achieving
the RFS standards while avoiding adverse environmental impacts. This
approach would provide a limited modification to the RVP provisions for
only certain fuel blends. EPA invites comment on whether it would have
the authority under Sec.  211(h) to adopt such an approach, and if so
whether it would be appropriate to do so and under what conditions.
    Specifically, we would consider imposing the following conditions
on such fuel blends:
    (1) Each separate component must individually meet the applicable
RVP standards (e.g., 10 psi for E10 and 9 psi for other blends).
    (2) The resulting commingled mixture would have to have an RVP that
is no higher than the weighted average of the products or components
considered separately. This could occur with blends that blend linearly
with respect to RVP (e.g., butanol).
    (3) The burden would be on the retailer to show that these
conditions had been satisfied. If a commingled product had volatility
above the allowable standard, and did not have from 9 volume percent to
10 volume percent ethanol, then the fuel would be considered
noncomplying unless the regulated party demonstrated that it met the
limited conditions discussed here. The retailer would have to
demonstrate that the conditions were met for application of this
modified method of determining compliance. This would call for at least
retaining records of the products received (with all required
regulatory statements and indications required) and volumes of the
products received in order to demonstrate a calculation to verify
compliance with the RVP standard.
    (4) In situations where the RVP of retail tank samples exceed 9.0/
7.8 psi, for defense purposes the retailer would need to test the
sample for the concentration of ethanol, butanol, and any other
applicable oxygenate in addition to the RVP level in order to allow for
the calculation in (3). The resulting blend ratio would need to meet or
demonstrate better performance reductions of such ratio on a linear
scale as established through regulation.
    Under this approach, we believe there would be no adverse
environmental effects because such mixtures would result in no net
increase in volatility. We also believe this would enable us to give
effect to the RFS provisions that call for increased use of renewable
fuels, and also be consistent with our rational for the treatment of
gasohol at the time we promulgated the RVP standards.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JN13.001

F. Amendments to Various RFS2 Compliance Related Provisions

    We are proposing a number of changes to the RFS2 regulations.
1. Proposed Changes to Definitions
``Responsible Corporate Officer''
    The existing RFS2 regulations at sections 80.1416, 80.1451 and
80.1454, and EPA guidance and instructions regarding registration and
reporting, frequently refer to the responsibilities of the ``owner or a
responsible corporate officer.'' However, the term ``responsible
corporate officer'' is not currently defined in the RFS2 regulations.
We propose that, for purposes of the RFS2 program, a ``responsible
corporate officer'' (RCO) means a corporate officer who has the
authority and is assigned responsibility to provide information to EPA
on behalf of a company. A company may name only one RCO, and the RCO
may not delegate his/her responsibility to any other person. However,
the RCO may delegate the ability to submit information to EPA to one or
more employees of the company or to one or more agents. The RCO remains
responsible for the information submitted to EPA by any employee or
agent. Adding a definition of RCO will codify existing practices and
will assist regulated parties in understanding roles under the RFS2
regulation.
``Small Refinery''
    Section 211(o)(9)(A) of the Clean Air Act provides an exemption
from RFS requirements through 2010 for ``small refineries,'' defined as
refineries having an average aggregate daily crude oil throughput for a
calendar year that does not exceed 75,000 barrels. It also provides for
possible extensions of this exemption, through individual petitions to
EPA. CAA 211(o)(9)(B). In EPA's March 26, 2010 regulations implementing
the EISA amendments we specified in the regulatory definition of
``small refinery'' that the 75,000 bpd threshold determination should
be calculated based on information from calendar year 2006. At the
beginning of the program, having a single year in which to make this
determination, simplified the calculations, and helped to ensure that
all refineries were treated similarly. However, we no longer believe
that it is appropriate that refineries satisfying the 75,000 bpd
threshold in 2006 should be eligible for extensions to their small
refinery RFS exemption if they no longer meet the 75,000 bpd threshold.
Allowing such facilities to qualify for an exemption extension, while
not allowing similarly sized facilities that have not grown since 2006
to qualify for an exemption,

does not appear fair, nor does it further the objectives of the statute
to target relief to only truly small facilities. Therefore, we propose
modifying the definition of small refinery so that the crude throughput
threshold of 75,000 bpd must apply in 2006 and in all subsequent years.
We also propose specifying in section 80.1441(e)(2)(iii) that in order
to qualify for an extension of its small refinery exemption, a refinery
must meet the definition of ``small refinery'' in section 80.1401 for
all full calendar years between 2006 and the date of submission of the
petition for an extension of the exemption.
    We proposed that that these changes would not affect any existing
exemption extensions under CAA 211(o)(9)(B); rather, they would apply
at such time as any approved exemption extension expires and the
refinery at issue seeks a further exemption extension. No further
extension would be permitted unless the revised crude oil throughput
specifications were satisfied.
2. Provisions for Small Blenders of Renewable Fuels
    The RFS2 regulations at section 80.1440 allow renewable fuel
blenders who handle and blend less than 125,000 gallons of renewable
fuel per year, and who are not obligated parties or exporters, to
delegate their RIN-related responsibilities to the party directly
upstream from them who supplied the renewable fuel for blending. EPA
has received feedback from several parties to the effect that the
125,000 threshold is too low, and is a lower threshold than what
industry considers ``small.'' EPA seeks input on what a more
appropriate gallon threshold should be. EPA seeks comment on the
regulated community's experience with the existing gallon threshold
associated with the provisions. EPA may adjust the gallon threshold in
the final rule based on further consideration of this issue and
evaluation of comments received.
3. Proposed Changes to Section 80.1450--Registration Requirements
    We propose to add a new paragraph (h) to section 80.1450 that will
describe the circumstances under which EPA may cancel a company
registration. EPA proposes to initiate a process to cancel a company
registration if the company has reported no activity in the EPA
Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) under section 80.1452 for one year.
EPA also proposes to initiate a process to cancel a company
registration if a party fails to comply with any registration
requirement of section 80.1450, if the party fails to submit any
required compliance report under section 80.1451, if the party fails to
meet the requirements related to the EPA Moderated Transaction System
(EMTS) under section 80.1452, or if the party fails to meet the
requirements related to attest engagements under section 80.1454. If
any required report, including the attest engagement, is thirty (30) or
more days overdue, EPA would provide written notice to the owner or
responsible corporate officer (RCO) that it intends to cancel the
company's registration and would allow the company fourteen (14) days
from the date of the letter's issuance to respond. If there is no
satisfactory response received, then EPA would cancel the registration.
Re-registration would be possible following the standard registration
procedures.
4. Proposed Changes to Section 80.1452--EPA Moderated Transaction
System (EMTS) Requirements--Alternative Reporting Method for Sell and
Buy Transactions for Assigned RINs
    Reporting and product transfer document (PTD) requirements, found
in sections 80.1452 and 80.1453, respectively, currently state that the
reportable event for a RIN purchase or sale occurs on the date of
transfer. Sellers must report the sale of RINs within five (5) business
days of the reportable event via the EPA Moderated Transaction System
(EMTS). Buyers must report the purchase of RINs within ten (10)
business days of the reportable event via EMTS. The date of transfer is
the date on which title of RINs is transferred from the seller to the
buyer. Some buyers and sellers of assigned RINs have expressed concerns
with these requirements stating they have difficulty determining the
date of transfer since title of the renewable fuel is not transferred
until the fuel physically reaches the buyer. Some transactions, for
example those by rail or barge, may take several weeks, and their
current accounting systems do not include a means for capturing the
buyer's receipt date.
    EPA understands this concern, but also recognizes that some
regulated parties have modified their accounting systems to address the
current reporting and PTD requirements in RFS2. We also believe that
for parties separating, retiring, and selling or buying separated RINs,
the current reporting and PTD requirements are effective and should
remain unchanged. Therefore, at this time EPA is not proposing to
replace existing requirements, but is instead proposing an additional,
alternative method for reporting sell and buy transactions involving
assigned RINs only.
    The proposed alternative method for sell and buy transactions of
assigned RINs would redefine the reportable event for both the seller
and the buyer, introduce a unique identifier that the seller must
provide to the buyer, and require the buyer to report the date of
transfer. Buyers and sellers would need to agree on which method they
would be using to report transfers of assigned RINs; either the current
method or the alternative method. EPA believes that this alternative
would provide the regulated community with the flexibility to address
their reporting concerns and also provide EPA with the data necessary
to effectively administer and enforce transactions of assigned RINs.
EPA welcomes comment on this proposed alternative method for reporting
assigned RIN buy and sell transactions.
    We propose that sellers of assigned RINs under the alternative
method be required to do the following:
     Within five (5) business days of shipping renewable fuel
with assigned RINs, report a sell transaction, using the alternative
method, via EMTS;
     Include in the EMTS sell transaction report other required
information per section 80.1452; and
     Provide a PTD to the assigned RIN buyer with a unique
identifier, also reported via EMTS, in addition to the information in
section 80.1453. The date of transfer is not required for the
alternative method.
    We propose that buyers of assigned RINs under the alternative
method be required to do the following:
     Within five (5) business days of receiving a shipment of
renewable fuel with assigned RINs, report a buy transaction, indicating
use of the alternative method, via EMTS;
     Include in the EMTS buy transaction report other required
information per section 80.1452;
     Include in the EMTS buy transaction report the unique
identifier provided by the seller; and
     Include in the EMTS buy transaction report the date the
renewable fuel was received, i.e. the date of transfer.
    If this proposed alternative method is finalized, the EMTS would be
modified to accept such transactions. EPA would provide additional
instruction and guidance at the time of the new EMTS version release.
EPA invites comment on all aspects of this proposal.

5. Proposed Changes to Section 80.1463--Confirm That Each Day an
Invalid RIN Remains in the Marketplace Is a Separate Day of Violation
    Preventing the generation and use of invalid RINs and encouraging
rapid retirement and replacement of invalid RINs is crucial to the
integrity of the RFS2 program. The RFS regulations include various
provisions related to prohibited acts and liability for violations.
Section 80.1460(a) sets forth the prohibited acts for the renewable
fuels program. Section 80.1460(b)(2) prohibits parties from creating or
transferring invalid RINs. Section 80.1461(a) states that the person
who violates a prohibited act is liable for the violation of that
prohibition. Section 80.1461(b) provides the liability provisions for
failure to meet other provisions of the regulations. The penalty
provisions of the regulations at section 80.1463(a) state that any
person who is liable for a violation under section 80.1461 is subject
to a civil penalty as specified in sections 205 and 211(d) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), for every day of each such violation and the amount of
economic benefit or savings resulting from each violation. Section
80.1463(c) provides that ``any person . . . is liable for a separate
day of violation for each day such a requirement remains unfulfilled.''
    EPA interprets these statutory and regulatory penalty provisions to
give the Agency the authority to seek penalties against parties
generating, transferring or causing another person to generate or
transfer invalid RINs for each day subsequent to the party's action
that an invalid RIN is available for sale or use by a party subject to
an obligation under the RFS2 program to acquire and retire RINs. For
example, for a RIN generator, this time period typically runs from the
date of invalid RIN generation until either corrective action is taken
by the RIN generator to remove the invalid RIN from the marketplace or
a party uses the RIN to satisfy an RVO or other requirement to retire
RINs (such as would apply under today's proposal to exporters of
renewable fuel or parties using fuel produced as renewable fuel for a
use other than as transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel). This
is consistent with the CAA approach of assessing penalties for every
day of a violation, consistent with EPA's historic approach under the
fuels regulations (See Section 80.615), and will encourage renewable
fuel producers that generate invalid RINs to promptly take corrective
action.
    We are proposing to amend section 80.1463 to more explicitly
incorporate EPA's interpretation of these penalty provisions into the
regulations. The amendments would state that any person liable for a
violation of section 80.1460(b) for creating or transferring an invalid
RIN, or for causing another person to create or transfer and invalid
RIN, is subject to a separate day of violation for each day that the
invalid RIN remains available for use for compliance purposes, and EPA
has the authority to seek the maximum statutory penalty for each day of
violation. EPA will apply the statutory factors in sections 211(c) and
205(b) of the CAA to evaluate the appropriate penalties for each
violation on a case by case basis.
6. Proposed Changes to Section 80.1466--Require Foreign Ethanol
Producers, Importers and Foreign Renewable Fuel Producers That Sell to
Importers To Be Subject to U.S. Jurisdiction and Post a Bond
    The current regulations include requirements that foreign renewable
fuel producers that generate RINs agree to be subject to a number of
additional requirements at section Sec.  80.1466, including, but not
limited to, designation, foreign producer certification, product
transfer document, load port independent testing and producer
identification, submission to U.S. jurisdiction and posting of a bond.
We are proposing to require the same requirements for foreign renewable
fuel producers, and foreign ethanol producers that produce biofuel for
which importers ultimately generate RINs, and for importers of
renewable fuel.
    In order to evaluate whether a fuel qualifies as RIN generating
renewable fuel (including determining the proper renewable fuel
category and RIN type for the imported fuel), EPA must be able to
evaluate the feedstocks and processes used to produce the renewable
components of the fuel. This is a particular challenge for fuel
produced at foreign facilities; unlike our other fuels programs, EPA
cannot determine whether a particular shipment of renewable fuel is
eligible to generate RINs under the RFS program by testing the fuel
itself. Furthermore, significant opportunity for fraud and non-
compliance with the regulations exists where EPA is not able to ensure
that RINs entering the U.S. are valid, and where enforcement of the
regulations may be hampered due to a facility's foreign location. We
believe that the same safeguards that apply to foreign RIN generating
renewable fuel producers should apply to other foreign producers whose
product is used by importers to generate RINs, and to those importers
themselves. Accordingly, we propose that foreign renewable fuel
producers and foreign ethanol producers who do not themselves generate
RINs for their product, and importers of renewable fuel, be required to
comply with the safeguards of section 80.1466. Given the challenges
associated with EPA's ability to determine whether a fuel qualifies as
RIN generating renewable fuel, and the potential for fraud, we believe
these additional safeguards are necessary for all foreign produced
renewable fuel, regardless of who generates the RINs. However, we seek
comment on the reasonability of expanding these additional requirements
onto foreign renewable fuel producers, and foreign ethanol producers
that produce biofuel for which importers ultimately generate RINs, and
for importers of renewable fuel. We further propose to amend section
80.1426(a)(4) to prohibit importers from generating RINs for renewable
fuel imported from a foreign renewable fuel producer or foreign ethanol
producer, unless and until the foreign renewable fuel producer or
foreign ethanol producer has satisfied all requirements of section
80.1466.
7. Proposed Changes to Section 80.1466(h)--Calculation of Bond Amount
for Foreign Renewable Fuel Producers, Foreign Ethanol Producers and
Importers
    EPA proposes two changes to section 80.1466 regarding calculation
of bonds. EPA proposes to amend the procedures for calculating the bond
amount for foreign renewable fuel producers, foreign ethanol producers
and importers to require that the bond amount be the larger of: (1) One
cent times the largest volume of renewable fuel produced by the foreign
producer and exported to the United States, in gallons, during a single
calendar year among the five preceding calendar years, or the largest
volume of renewable fuel that the foreign producers expects to export
to the Unites States during any calendar year identified in the
Production Outlook Report required by section 80.1449, or (2) the sum
of the following calculation for each RIN type: 0.25 times the largest
volume of renewable fuel produced by the foreign producer and exported
to the United States, in gallons, during a single calendar year among
the five preceding calendar years, or the largest volume of renewable
fuel that the foreign producers expects to export to the Unites States
during any calendar year identified in the Production Outlook Report
required by section 80.1449, times a ``RIN multiplier D code''
established by EPA in the regulations.

The proposed ``RIN multiplier D codes'' vary from $.02 for D code 6 to
$1.30 for D code 4. When the original renewable fuels standard
regulations (RFS1) were written, an RFS1 RIN was worth pennies. With
the implementation of RFS2, the price of some RINs has increased
significantly, in part because of the demand for certain categories of
fuel such as biomass-based diesel. In order to keep up with these
market conditions, the bond amount needs to be increased; a penny per
gallon of fuel may no longer be a fair valuation of a foreign renewable
fuel producer's potential penalty for RFS violations. Bonds are used to
satisfy any judicial judgment that results from an administrative or
judicial enforcement action for conduct in violation of this subpart.
Therefore, we propose to amend section 80.1466(h)(1) to include the
calculation described above, that reflects current market valuation for
different types of RINs. We seek comment on whether the proposed bond
calculation procedures are appropriate, and in particular whether they
are sufficiently large to cover potential liability.
    EPA also proposes to amend paragraph (h) of section 80.1466 to be
consistent with paragraph (j)(4), which prohibits generating RINs in
excess of the number for which the bond requirements have been
satisfied. Paragraph (h) regulates the size of the bond a foreign
renewable fuel producer must post in order to generate RINs. This
formula takes into account the volume of renewable fuel a foreign
renewable fuel producer has exported or intends to export to the United
States. Section 80.1466(h) states, in part: ``If the volume of
renewable fuel exported to the United States increases above the
largest volume identified in the Production Outlook Report during any
calendar year, the foreign producer shall increase the bond to cover
the shortfall within 90 days.'' This conflicts with the stricter
language in paragraph (j)(4) of the same section, which prohibits a
foreign producer of renewable fuel from generating RINs in excess of
the number for which the bond requirements of section 80.1466 have been
satisfied. EPA interprets the stricter provision at section
80.1466(j)(4) to be controlling, and we propose to change the language
in section 80.1466(h) accordingly.
8. Proposed Changes to Facility's Baseline Volume To Allow ``Nameplate
Capacity'' for Facilities Not Claiming Exemption From the 20% GHG
Reduction Threshold
    As a requirement of registration under the RFS2 program, each
renewable fuel producer and foreign ethanol producer must establish and
provide documents to support its facility's baseline volume as defined
in section 80.1401. This is either the permitted capacity or, if
permitted capacity cannot be determined, the actual peak capacity of a
specific renewable fuel production facility on a calendar year basis.
After the promulgation of the March 26, 2010 RFS2 rule, we have
received many requests from companies to allow them to use their
nameplate or ``design'' capacity to establish their facility's baseline
volume due to either the facility being exempt from obtaining a permit,
and thus not able to determine their permitted capacity, or the
facility not starting operations, or not being operational for a full
calendar year to produce actual production records to establish actual
peak capacities. Because the regulations currently only allow a
facility's baseline volume to be established by a limit stated in a
permit or actual production records for at least one calendar year,
facilities that had neither a permit or sufficient production records
had difficulty registering under the RFS2 program. To allow facilities
that fall under this predication to register under the RFS2 program, we
are proposing in this rulemaking to allow a facility to use its
``nameplate capacity'' to establish its facility's baseline volume for
the purposes of registration, only if (1) the facility does not have a
permit or there is no limit stated in the permit to establish their
permitted capacity, and (2) has not started operations or does not have
at least one calendar year of production records, and (3) does not
claim exemption from the 20 percent GHG threshold under Sec.  80.1403.
Due to the complexity of the exemption provision provided under Sec.
80.1403, and the added flexibility that facilities claiming this
exemption are allotted under the program, we are not proposing to
extend this option to facilities claiming an exemption under Sec.
80.1403. Additionally, by this stage in the RFS2 program, the
facilities that would qualify for registration under Sec.  80.1403
would be very few, if any. This proposal would revise the definition of
baseline volume to include ``nameplate capacity,'' add a new definition
for ``nameplate capacity'' to Sec.  80.1401, and include conforming
amendments to the registration requirements of Sec.  80.1450.

G. Minor Corrections to RFS2 Provisions

    We are proposing a number of corrections to address minor
definitional issues that have been identified as we have been
implementing the RFS2 program.
Renewable Biomass
    We propose to amend the definition of ``renewable biomass'' in
section 80.1401 to make clear that biomass obtained in the vicinity of
buildings means biomass obtained within 200 feet of the buildings. The
preamble for the March 26, 2010 RFS2 final rule cites the distance of
200 feet (see 75 FR 14696), but EPA did not include a reference to this
value in the regulations. We believe doing so would provide additional
clarity to the regulations.
English Language Translations
    We propose to add a new paragraph (i) to section 80.1450 to state
that any registration materials submitted to EPA must be in English or
accompanied by an English language translation. Similarly, we propose
to add a new paragraph (h) to section 80.1451 that will state that any
reports submitted to EPA must be in English or accompanied by an
English language translation and add a new paragraph (q) to section
80.1454 that will state that any records submitted to EPA must be in
English or accompanied by an English language translation. The
translation and all other associated documents must be maintained by
the submitting company for a period of five (5) years, which is already
the established time period for keeping records under the existing RFS2
program.
Correction of Typographical Errors
    We propose to correct various typographical errors in section
80.1466. Specifically, we propose to amend paragraph (o) to correct a
typographical error in the last sentence of the affirmation statement,
by changing the citation from Sec.  80.1465 to Sec.  80.1466. We also
propose to amend paragraph (d)(3)(ii) to correct a typographical error.
The current regulation cites section 80.65(e)(2)(iii), which does not
exist. The correct citation is to section 80.65(f)(2)(iii).

VI. Amendments to the E15 Misfueling Mitigation Rule

    We propose the following minor corrections and other changes to the
E15 misfueling mitigation rule (E15 MMR) found at 40 CFR Part 80,
subpart N.

A. Proposed Changes to Section 80.1501--Label

    We propose to correct several minor errors in the description of
the E15 label required by the E15 MMR at section 80.1501, including
corrections in the dimensions of the label and ensuring that the word
``ATTENTION'' is capitalized. The Agency intended the label required by
the regulations to look

identical to that pictured in the Federal Register notice for the final
E15 MMR (see 76 FR 44406, 44418, July 25, 2011).

B. Proposed Changes to Section 80.1502--E15 Survey

    We are proposing two changes to the survey requirements found at
section 80.1502. First, we propose to clarify that E15 surveys need to
sample for Reid vapor pressure (RVP) only during the high ozone season
as defined in section 80.27(a)(2)(ii) or during any time RVP standards
apply in any state implementation plan approved or promulgated under
the Clean Air Act. EPA did not intend to require RVP sampling and
testing during the rest of the year, when RVP standards do not apply.
    Second, we propose to change when the results of surveys that
detect potential noncompliance must be reported to the Agency. As
originally drafted, the regulations require the independent survey
association conducting a survey to notify EPA of potentially
noncompliant samples within 24 hours of the laboratory receiving this
sample (see 76 FR at 44423, July 25, 2011). EPA has since learned that
more time may be needed for reporting of noncompliant samples since it
may take several days for analysis of the sample to be completed. We
are therefore requiring that noncompliant samples be reported to EPA
within 24 hours of being analyzed.

C. Proposed Changes to Section 80.1503--Product Transfer Documents

    EPA is proposing certain minor changes to the product transfer
document (PTD) requirements found at section 80.1503. Specifically, we
are proposing to allow the use of product codes for conventional
blendstock/gasoline upstream of an ethanol blending facility, since
historically, the codes have been allowed to be used for conventional
blendstock/gasoline upstream of an ethanol blending facility in other
fuels programs. This was an omission from the original regulation.
    We are also seeking comment on potential ways of streamlining the
PTD language required at section 80.1503.

D. Proposed Changes to Section 80.1504--Prohibited Acts

    EPA is slightly rewording section 80.1504(g) to state that blending
E10 that has taken advantage of the statutory 1.0 psi RVP waiver during
the summertime RVP control period with a gasoline-ethanol fuel that
cannot take advantage of the 1.0 psi RVP waiver (i.e., a fuel that
contains more than 10.0 volume percent ethanol (e.g., E15) or less than
9 volume percent ethanol) would be a violation of the E15 MMR. As
originally written, the language does not clearly describe the
prohibited activity (see 76 FR 44435, 44436, Jult 25, 2011).

E. Proposed Changes to Section 80.1500--Definitions

    On August 17, 2011, the National Petroleum Refiners Association,
now called American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), filed
a petition for reconsideration with the Agency under CAA section
307(d)(7)(B) asking EPA to reconsider certain portions of the E15 MMR.
A copy of the petition has been placed in the docket. The petition
fundamentally focuses on one issue--AFPM expressed concern that the
Agency had defined E10 and E15 in the E15 MMR in a way that would
change how ethanol concentrations are determined for regulatory
purposes. Today we grant AFPM's request for reconsideration of this
issue as explained in their August 17, 2011 petition. As explained
below, while EPA did not intend the definitions of E10 and E15 in the
E15 MMR to have this effect, we are proposing changes to the
regulations to avoid this perceived impact.
    On April 6, 1979, fuel containing 90% unleaded gasoline and 10%
ethyl alcohol received a waiver under section 211(f)(4) by operation of
law (see 44 FR 20777, April 6, 1979). Later, EPA issued an
interpretative ruling that stated the April 6, 1979 waiver covered
gasoline-ethanol blends that contained up to 10 vol% ethanol content
(see 47 FR 14596, April 5, 1982). Finally, in the context of
regulations limiting the Reid vapor pressure (RVP) of gasoline, EPA has
defined E10 as gasoline containing between 9 and 10 volume percent
ethanol. Under the RVP regulations and the Clean Air Act, the RVP of
E10 is allowed to be 1 pound per square inch (psi) higher than it is
for gasoline or gasoline-ethanol blends containing less than 9 and more
than 10 vol% ethanol (often referred to as the ``1.0 psi waiver'').
    In the E15 MMR, EPA defined E10 as gasoline containing at least 9.0
and no more than 10.0 vol% ethanol and defined E15 as a gasoline-
ethanol blend containing greater than 10.0 and no more than 15.0 vol%
ethanol. EPA included those definitions in the E15 MMR so that fuels
blended to contain more than 10.0 vol% ethanol were subject to the
misfueling mitigation requirements for E15. After publication of the
E15 MMR, stakeholders including AFPM expressed concern that by defining
E10 as E10.0, the Agency may have effectively made the ethanol
concentration limits specified in the E10 and the E15 waiver decisions
and the RVP regulations more stringent, which in turn would impact
whether a party must comply with the E15 MMR requirements and whether a
fuel qualifies for the RVP 1.0 psi waiver.
    In its petition, AFPM noted that under existing EPA regulations at
40 CFR 80.9, the results of compliance testing for the ethanol
concentration in gasoline are ``rounded down'' when the results
indicate that gasoline-ethanol fuel may contain slightly more than 10
vol% ethanol. AFPM further stated that in view of this rounding
procedure, fuel that compliance testing indicates has an ethanol
concentration of between 10.0 and 10.4 should be considered E10. AFPM
argued that the E15 MMR definition of E10 as containing no more than
10.0 vol% ethanol constituted a ``substantive change'' to the proposed
E15 MMR that would also alter the implementation of other EPA fuels
regulations without a required rulemaking.
    As part of the E15 MMR proposed rule, we identified prospective
responsible parties for each misfueling mitigation measure, including
requirements related to labeling E15 fuel dispensers, compliance
surveys, and product transfer documents. We received a number of
comments from many affected stakeholders, including AFPM, that asked us
to clarify which party or parties would be responsible for each
misfueling mitigation measure and when each party or parties would be
subject to those requirements. In the final E15 MMR, we added the
significant digit to the definitions of E10 and E15 in order to provide
a delineation between E10 and E15 and consequently the parties subject
to one or more of the E15 misfueling mitigation measures.
    AFPM argued in their petition that by defining E10 as containing no
more than 10.0 vol% ethanol, EPA effectively made a substantive change
to the way test results used for determining compliance with fuel
requirements are rounded. For example, for a gasoline-ethanol blend to
be considered E10, it could no longer contain up to 10.4 vol% ethanol;
it could only contain up to 10.04 vol% ethanol. AFPM asserted that
there is a tolerance for blending ethanol that allows blends containing
up to 10.4 vol% ethanol to be considered E10. While we do not agree
that there is a blending tolerance for ethanol, we agree that test
results are rounded utilizing the procedures identified in section 80.9
when compared to applicable standards, in this case the ethanol
concentrations

specified in the E10 and the E15 waivers.
    The Agency specifically addressed the issue of blending tolerances
versus testing tolerances for gasoline-ethanol blends in the RFS2
NPRM.\50\ At the time, some stakeholders had suggested that the
implementation of a blending tolerance for the ethanol content of
gasoline could be allowed to help obligated parties satisfy RFS
requirements without the need for a CAA section 211(f)(4) waiver. In
response, we argued that although the test methods used to measure
ethanol concentration (ASTM D 5599 and ASTM D 4815) include some
variability, ethanol is different than other fuel properties and
components that are controlled in other fuel programs.\51\ Fuel
properties such as RVP, and components such as sulfur and benzene, are
natural characteristics of gasoline as a result of the chemical nature
of crude oil and the refining process. Their levels or concentrations
in gasoline are unknown until measured and are dependent upon the
accuracy of the test method. In contrast, ethanol is intentionally
added in known amounts using equipment designed to ensure a specific
concentration within a very narrow range. Parties that blend ethanol
into gasoline normally have precise control over the final
concentration. Therefore, a blending tolerance for ethanol would not be
appropriate. During the comment period for the RFS2 NPRM, EPA received
a number of comments from stakeholders that argued that the volume
percentage of ethanol in gasoline is readily determined using very
accurate volumetric ratio blending facilities now in place at most
blending terminals; therefore, the Agency should not allow a blending
tolerance. In the final RFS rule, we did not include a blending
tolerance for ethanol blends.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See 74 FR 25018 (May 26, 2009).
    \51\ See 74 FR 25018 (May 26, 2009).
    \52\ See 75 FR 14762-14764 (March 26, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We continue to believe that blending tolerances for ethanol are not
appropriate, and the definitions of E10 and E15 in the E15 MMR are
consistent with this view. The E10 waiver is for gasoline containing
``up to'' 10 vol% ethanol, not for gasoline containing ``up to'' 10.4
vol% ethanol, and the E15 partial waivers are for fuel designed to
contain ``greater than 10 vol% ethanol and not more than 15 vol%
ethanol.'' In the case of both waivers, the ``10'' and the ``15'' are
exact numbers, not approximations, and they express how much ethanol
can be lawfully added to fuel. Testing by the Department of Energy
utilized in making the E15 partial waiver decisions was blended as
precisely as possible to contain the relevant percentage of ethanol,
not that percentage plus ``0.49.'' Testing for registration of E10 and
E15 fuel and fuel additives under 40 CFR part 79 was also done with
fuels blended as precisely as possible to contain the relevant
percentage of ethanol. Similarly, EPA regulations provide that only
fuel with an ethanol concentration of between 9 and 10 vol%, not more
or less, may lawfully use the statutory 1.0 psi RVP waiver.
    At the same time, we did not intend to change the definition of E10
in a way that impacts the rounding of test results for ethanol
concentrations.\53\ If a manufacturer blends in a way designed to
result in a gasoline-ethanol fuel containing no more than 10.0 vol%
ethanol, but compliance testing indicates a concentration of 10.4 vol%,
we will still round down the test result in accordance with procedures
in section 80.9. The purpose of the E15 MMR definitions state that if a
manufacturer blends ethanol into gasoline in a way designed to result
in a gasoline-ethanol fuel containing greater than 10.0 vol% and no
more than 15.0 vol% ethanol, it will be subject to applicable E15 MMR
requirements. For example, bills of lading for an E10 fuel manufacturer
that indicates the manufacturer has purchased and blended more ethanol
than 10.0 vol% ethanol may indicate that a fuel does not meet the
definition of E10 for E15 MMR purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ For an explanation of the rounding procedures outlined in
Sec.  80.9 and the rationale the Agency used to adopt those
procedures, see 71 FR 16496 (April 3, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AFPM also argued that the E15 MMR definitions of E10 would alter
the implementation of other EPA fuels regulations without a required
rulemaking, specifically the application of the 1.0 psi RVP waiver to
E10. Since the Agency intended the E15 MMR definition of E10 to only
apply for purposes of determining the applicability of E15 MMR
requirements, the Agency does not believe these definitions affect the
implementation and enforcement of others fuels programs, including the
applicability of the 1.0 psi RVP waiver. The introductory language to
the definitions at 40 CFR part 80, subpart N clearly states that
definitions in section 80.1500 are ``[f]or purposes of this subpart
only.''
    In order to clarify that these definitions only apply in the
context of the E15 MMR, EPA is proposing to add a new section 80.1509,
which contains language that clearly states that when ethanol
concentrations are measured for compliance testing purposes for 40 CFR,
Part 80, Subpart N, the applicable ethanol concentration value will be
rounded using the rounding procedures at section 80.9. EPA is also
proposing new prohibited acts language in section 80.1504 that should
make it clear that only those parties that (1) produce gasoline,
blendstocks for oxygenate blending (BOBs), or ethanol designed to be
used in the manufacture of E15 as currently defined (i.e., E15.0); (2)
that manufacture E15 to be introduced into commerce; or (3) that
dispense E15 from a retail outlet. The Agency specifically seeks
comments on this proposed language.

VII. Proposed Amendments to the ULSD Diesel Sulfur Survey

    EPA is requesting comment concerning whether to amend a provision
of the ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) rule. The ULSD rule includes a
provision that deems branded refiners liable for violations of the ULSD
sulfur standard that are found at retail outlets displaying the
refiner's brand (40 CFR 80.612). The regulations include defense
provisions. One element of a branded refiner's defense to such
violations is that it must have a periodic sampling and testing program
at the retail level (40 CFR 80.613(b) and (d)). The regulations also
set forth an alternative sampling and testing defense element provision
for branded refiners.
    This alternative defense element provision (40 CFR 80.613(e))
allows a branded refiner to meet the company-specific downstream
periodic sampling and testing element of its defense by participating
in funding a survey consortium that samples diesel fuel at retail
outlets nationwide. This sampling and testing of fuel to determine
compliance with the ULSD sulfur standard is carried out by an
independent survey association. EPA reviews and approves the annual
survey plan submitted by the survey association. The number of samples
that are taken each year is determined by a statistical formula that is
based in part on the previous year's compliance rate. In addition, the
regulations set a floor and a ceiling for the number of samples that
must be taken in an annual survey cycle regardless of the sample number
that would be calculated using the regulatory formula. Therefore, the
number of samples required to be taken can potentially be less than the
formula would require, or it can be more.
    Compliance with the ULSD sulfur content standard has been extremely
high; less than 1% of the samples have been in violation in recent
years. The

minimum number of samples currently required to be taken annually is
set by the regulation at 5,250 regardless of this high compliance rate.
Due to the high compliance rate, use of the statistical formula would
result in a sampling rate of several hundred samples for each of the
past several years, instead of 5,250 samples. The cost difference
between taking several hundred samples versus taking over 5,000 samples
is significant. For these reasons we believe the continued high
compliance rate, and the substantial discrepancy between the sampling
rate calculated by the formula and the minimum sampling rate, argue for
lowering the minimum sampling rate. However, we believe there is a
point where the number of samples per year would be so few that the
survey would be meaningless relative to robust sampling and testing
programs conducted by each refiner individually. Balancing these
concerns, we believe minimum sampling rate of about 1,800 samples is
appropriate. We are requesting comment on reducing the minimum number
of samples to some rate below 2,000 samples.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises novel
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this notice of proposed
rulemaking have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA
related to this proposal has been assigned EPA ICR number 2469.01. A
supporting statement for the proposed ICR has been placed in the
docket. The proposed information collection is described in the
following paragraphs.
    This action contains recordkeeping and reporting that may affect
the following parties under the RFS2 regulation: RIN generators
(producers, importers), obligated parties (refiners), exporters, and
parties who own or transact RINs. We estimate that 670 parties may be
subject to the proposed information collection. We estimate an annual
recordkeeping and reporting burden of 3.1 hours per respondent. This
action contains recordkeeping and reporting that may affect the
following parties under the E15 regulation: gasoline refiners, gasoline
and ethanol importers, gasoline and ethanol blenders (including
terminals and carriers). We estimate that 2,000 respondents may be
subject to the proposed information collection. We estimate an annual
recordkeeping and reporting burden of 1.3 hours per respondent. Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review the instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transit or otherwise disclose the information. Burden is as defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this proposed rule, which includes the ICR described above, under
Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401. Submit any comments related to
the ICR to EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of
this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB
at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after June 14, 2013,
a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it by July 15, 2013.

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 action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
amendments to the RFS2 provisions in this direct final rule will not
impose any requirements on small entities that were not already
considered under the final RFS2 regulations, as it makes relatively
minor corrections and modifications to those regulations. We continue
to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

modifications to the RFS2 and diesel regulations.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action only applies to
gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuel producers, importers, distributors
and marketers and makes relatively minor corrections and modifications
to the RFS2 and diesel regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this
proposed action from State and local officials.

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

    This proposed 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 makes relatively minor corrections and
modifications to the RFS and diesel regulations, and does not impose
any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from
tribal officials.

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

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

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This action amends existing regulations
related to renewable fuel, E15, and ultra-lower sulfur diesel. We have
concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy
effects. In fact, we expect this proposed rule may result in positive
effects, because many of the changes we are proposing will facilitate
the introduction of new renewable fuels under the RFS2 program and have
come at the suggestion of industry stakeholders.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 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. EPA
welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and,
specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should
be used in this regulation.

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

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

K. Clean Air Act Section 307(d)

    This rule is subject to Section 307(d) of the CAA. Section
307(d)(7)(B) provides that ``[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure
which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for
public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during
judicial review.'' This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA
to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to
raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the
grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment
(but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any
person seeking to make such a demonstration to the EPA should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Director of
the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code
2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

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

    Dated: May 20, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR chapter I as set forth
below:

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, 7542, 7545 and 7601(a).

0
2. Section 80.613 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(4)(v)(A)
definition ``n'' as follows:

Sec.  80.613  What defenses apply to persons deemed liable for a
violation of a prohibited act under this subpart?

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (A) * * *

Where:

n= minimum number of samples in a year-long survey series. However,
in no case shall n be larger than 9,600 nor smaller than 1,800.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 80.1401 is amended by adding the definitions of ``Nameplate
capacity'', ``Renewable compressed natural gas'', ``Renewable fuel
producer'', ``Renewable liquefied natural gas'', ``Responsible
corporate officer'', in alphabetical order and revising the definitions
of ``Biogas'', ``Crop residue'', ``Naphtha'', ``Renewable biomass'',
and ``Small refinery'' in to read as follows:

Sec.  80.1401  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Biogas means a mixture of hydrocarbons that is a gas at 60 degrees
Fahrenheit and 1 atmosphere of pressure that is produced through the
conversion of organic matter. Biogas includes landfill gas, gas from
waste digesters, and gas from waste treatment plants. Waste digesters
include digesters processing animal wastes, biogenic waste oils/fats/
greases, separated food and yard wastes, and crop residues, and waste
treatment plants include wastewater treatment plants and publicly owned
treatment works.
* * * * *
    Crop residue is the biomass left over from the harvesting or
processing of planted crops from existing agricultural land and any
biomass removed from existing agricultural land that facilitates crop
management (including biomass removed from such lands in relation to
invasive species control or fire management), whether or not the
biomass includes any portion of a crop or crop plant. Biomass is
considered crop residue only if the use of that biomass for the
production of renewable fuel has no significant impact on demand for
the feedstock crop, products produced from that feedstock crop, and all
substitutes for the crop and its products, nor any other impact that
would result in a significant increase in direct or indirect GHG
emissions.
* * * * *
    Nameplate capacity means the peak design capacity of a facility for
the purposes of registration of a facility under Sec.
80.1450(b)(1)(V)(E).
    Naphtha means a blendstock or fuel blending component falling
within the boiling range of gasoline which is composed of only
hydrocarbons, is commonly or commercially known as naphtha and is used
to produce gasoline through blending.
* * * * *
    Renewable biomass means each of the following (including any
incidental, de minimis contaminants that are impractical to remove and
are related to customary feedstock production and transport):
    (1) Planted crops and crop residue harvested from existing
agricultural land cleared or cultivated prior to December 19, 2007 and
that was nonforested and either actively managed or fallow on December
19, 2007.
    (2) Planted trees and tree residue from a tree plantation located
on non-federal land (including land belonging to an Indian tribe or an
Indian individual that is held in trust by the U.S. or subject to a
restriction against alienation imposed by the U.S.) that was cleared at
any time prior to December 19, 2007 and actively managed on December
19, 2007.
    (3) Animal waste material and animal byproducts.
    (4) Slash and pre-commercial thinnings from non-federal forestland
(including forestland belonging to an Indian tribe or an Indian
individual, that are held in trust by the United States or subject to a
restriction against alienation imposed by the United States) that is
not ecologically sensitive forestland.
    (5) Biomass (organic matter that is available on a renewable or
recurring basis) obtained from the immediate vicinity (i.e., obtained
within 200 feet) of buildings and other areas regularly occupied by
people, or of public infrastructure, in an area at risk of wildfire.
    (6) Algae.
    (7) Separated yard waste or food waste, including recycled cooking
and trap grease, and materials described in Sec.  80.1426(f)(5)(i).
    Renewable compressed natural gas means biogas as defined in this
section, that is processed to the standards of pipeline natural gas as
defined in 40 CFR 72.2 and that is compressed to pressures up to 3600
psi. Only renewable CNG that qualifies as renewable fuel and is used
for transportation purposes can generate RINs.
* * * * *
    Renewable fuel producer means a person who operates or directly
supervises the operation of a facility where renewable fuel is
produced.
* * * * *
    Renewable liquefied natural gas means biogas as defined in this
section, that is processed to the standards of pipeline natural gas as
defined in 40 CFR 72.2 and that goes through the process of
liquefaction in which the biogas is cooled below its boiling point and
weighs less than half the weight of water so it will float if spilled
on water. Only renewable LNG that qualifies as renewable fuel and is
used for transportation fuel can generate RINs.
    Responsible Corporate Officer, or RCO, for this subpart only, means
a corporate officer who has the authority and is assigned
responsibility to provide information to EPA on behalf of a company. A
company may name only one Responsible Corporate Officer. A Responsible
Corporate Officer may not delegate his or her responsibility to any
other person. The Responsible Corporate Officer may delegate the
ability to submit information to EPA, but the Responsible Corporate
Officer remains responsible for the actions of such employees or
agents.
* * * * *
    Small Refinery, for this subpart only, means a refinery for which
the average aggregate daily crude oil throughput for calendar year 2006
and subsequent years (as determined by dividing the aggregate
throughput for the calendar year by the number of days in the calendar
year) does not exceed 75,000 barrels.
0
4. Section 80.1415 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (c)(1)
to read as follows:

Sec.  80.1415  How are equivalence values assigned to renewable fuel?

    (b) * * *
    (5) 77,000 Btu (lower heating value) of compressed natural gas
(CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) shall represent one gallon of
renewable fuel with an equivalence value of 1.0.
    (c) * * *
    (1) The equivalence value for renewable fuels described in
paragraph (b)(7) of this section shall be calculated using the
following formula:

EV = (R/0.972) * (EC/77,000)

Where:

EV = Equivalence Value for the renewable fuel, rounded to the
nearest tenth.
R = Renewable content of the renewable fuel. Except as provided in
Sec.  80.1426(f)(4)(iii), this is a measure of the portion of a
renewable fuel that came from renewable biomass, expressed as a
fraction, on an energy basis.
EC = Energy content of the renewable fuel, in Btu per gallon (lower
heating value).

0
5. Section 80.1426 is amended by:
0
a. Revising Table 1 of paragraph (f)(1) by:
0
1. Revising the entry for ``Q''; and
0
2. Adding new entries for T through AA to the end of the table;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (f)(10) and f(11); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (f)(14).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

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

    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *

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

                                                  * * * * * * *
Q.....................  Renewable Compressed    Biogas from waste       Any........................            5
                         Natural Gas,            treatment plants and
                         Renewable Liquefied     waste digesters.
                         Natural Gas.

                                                  * * * * * * *
T.....................  Butanol...............  Corn starch...........  Fermentation; dry mill                 5
                                                                         using natural gas and
                                                                         biogas from on-site thin
                                                                         stillage anaerobic
                                                                         digester for process
                                                                         energy w/CHP producing
                                                                         excess electricity of at
                                                                         least 40% of the purchased
                                                                         natural gas energy used by
                                                                         the facility.
U.....................  Renewable Compressed    Biogas from Landfills.  Any........................            3
                         Natural Gas,
                         Renewable Liquefied
                         Natural Gas.
V.....................  Renewable Electricity.  Biogas from landfills.  Any........................            3
W.....................  Cellulosic Naphtha....  Biogas from landfills.  Fischer-Tropsch process;               3
                                                                         Facilities must produce at
                                                                         least 20% of their
                                                                         electricity usage at the
                                                                         facility.
X.....................  Cellulosic Diesel for   Biogas from landfills.  Fischer-Tropsch process;               7
                         use as conventional                             Facilities must produce at
                         diesel fuel.                                    least 20% of their
                                                                         electricity usage at the
                                                                         facility.
Y.....................  Naphtha...............  Biogas from landfills.  Fischer-Tropsch process....            5
Z.....................  Renewable Diesel for    Biogas from landfills.  Fischer-Tropsch process;               4
                         use as conventional                             Excluding processes that
                         diesel fuel.                                    co-process renewable
                                                                         biomass and petroleum.
AA....................  Renewable Diesel for    Biogas from landfills.  Fischer-Tropsch process;               5
                         use as conventional                             Includes only processes
                         diesel fuel.                                    that co-process renewable
                                                                         biomass and petroleum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (10)(i) For purposes of this section, renewable electricity that is
not introduced into a distribution system with electricity derived from
non-renewable feedstocks is considered renewable fuel and the producer
may generate RINs if all of the following apply:
    (A) The electricity is produced from renewable biomass and
qualifies for a D code in Table 1 to this section or has received
approval for use of a D code by the Administrator;
    (B) The fuel producer has entered into a written contract for the
sale of a specific quantity of renewable electricity as transportation
fuel; and
    (C) The renewable electricity is used as a transportation fuel.
    (ii) For purposes of this section, fuels produced from biogas that
is not introduced into a distribution system with gas derived from non-
renewable feedstocks is considered renewable fuel and the producer may
generate RINs if all of the following apply:
    (A) The fuel is produced from renewable biomass and qualifies for a
D code in Table 1 to this section or has received approval for use of a
D code by the Administrator;
    (B) The fuel producer has entered into a written contract for the
sale of a specific quantity of biogas to be used as a feedstock for
transportation fuel; and
    (C) The fuel produced from the biogas is used as a transportation
fuel.
    (iii) A producer of renewable electricity that is generated by co-
firing a combination of renewable biomass and fossil fuel may generate
RINs only for the portion attributable to the renewable biomass, using
the procedure described in paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
    (11)(i) For purposes of this section, renewable electricity that is
introduced into a commercial distribution system (transmission grid)
may be considered renewable fuel and the producer may generate RINs if:
    (A) The electricity is produced from renewable biomass and
qualifies for a D code in Table 1 of this section or has received
approval for use of a D code by the Administrator;
    (B) The fuel producer has entered into a written contract for the
sale of a specific quantity of electricity derived from renewable
biomass sources with a party that uses electricity taken from a
commercial distribution system for use as a transportation fuel, and
such electricity has been introduced into that commercial distribution
system (transmission grid);
    (C) The quantity of renewable electricity for which RINs were
generated was sold for use as transportation fuel and for no other
purposes; and
    (D) The renewable electricity was loaded onto and withdrawn from a
physically connected transmission grid as defined by the North American
Electrical Reliability Corporation (NERC) regions.
    (ii) For purposes of this section, fuel produced from biogas that
is introduced

into a commercial distribution system may be considered renewable fuel
and the producer may generate RINs if:
    (A) The fuel is produced from renewable biomass and qualifies for a
D code in Table 1 of this section or has received approval for use of a
D code by the Administrator;
    (B) The fuel producer has entered into a written contract for the
sale of a specific quantity of fuel derived from renewable biomass
sources with a party that uses fuel taken from a commercial
distribution system for transportation fuel, and such fuel has been
introduced into that commercial distribution system (e.g., pipeline);
    (C) The quantity of fuel produced from the biogas for which RINs
were generated was sold for use as transportation fuel and for no other
purposes;
    (D) The biogas was injected into and withdrawn from a physically
connected carrier pipeline;
    (E) The gas that is ultimately withdrawn from that pipeline for use
in a transportation fuel is withdrawn in a manner and at a time
consistent with the transport of gas between the injection and
withdrawal points; and
    (F) The volume and heat content of biogas injected into the
pipeline and the volume of gas withdrawn to make a transportation fuel
are measured by continuous metering.
    (iii) The fuel sold for use in transportation fuel is considered
produced from renewable biomass only to the extent that:
    (A) The amount of fuel sold for use as transportation fuel matches
the amount of fuel derived from renewable biomass that the producer
contracted to have placed into the commercial distribution system; and
    (B) No other party relied upon the contracted volume of biogas or
renewable electricity for the creation of RINs.
    (iv) For renewable electricity that is generated by co-firing a
combination of renewable biomass and fossil fuel, the producer may
generate RINs only for the portion attributable to the renewable
biomass, using the procedure described in paragraph (f)(4) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (14) For purposes of verification, in order for facilities to meet
the renewable electricity production requirement for the biogas-derived
cellulosic diesel and cellulosic naphtha pathways, all conditions below
apply.
    (i) The quantity of process electricity produced on-site must be
measured by continuous metering.
    (ii) The electricity must be used to provide power to process units
or process equipment at the facility.
    (iii) The electrical energy must derive from raw landfill gas,
waste heat from the production process, unconverted syngas from the F-T
process, fuel gas from the hydroprocessing or combined heat and power
(CHP) units that use non-fossil fuel based gas or other renewable
sources.
0
6. Section 80.1427 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(1)(i) definition
``RVOCB,i'', (a)(1)(ii) definition ``RVOBBD,i'',
(a)(1)(iii) definition ``RVOAB,i'', (a)(1)(iv) definition
``RVORF,i, (a)(5) introductory text, and (a)(6); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(v), (a)(1)(vi), (a)(1)(vii), (a)(1)(viii),
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  80.1427  How are RINs used to demonstrate compliance?

    (a) Renewable Volume Obligations and Exporter Renewable Volume
Obligations. (1) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section
or Sec.  80.1456, each party that is an obligated party under Sec.  80
1406 and is obligated to meet the Renewable Volume Obligations under
Sec.  80.1407, or is an exporter of renewable fuel that is obligated to
meet the Exporter Renewable Volume Obligations under Sec.  80.1430,
must demonstrate pursuant to Sec.  80.1451(a)(1) that it is retiring
for compliance purposes a sufficient number of RINs to satisfy the
following equations.
    (i) * * *

RVOCB,i = The renewable Volume Obligation for cellulosic
biofuel for the obligated party for calendar year i, in gallons,
pursuant to Sec.  80.1407.

    (ii) * * *

RVOBBD,i = The renewable Volume Obligation for biomass-
based diesel for the obligated party for calendar year i, in
gallons, pursuant to Sec.  80.1407.

    (iii) * * *

RVOAB,i = The renewable Volume Obligation for advanced
biofuel for the obligated party for calendar year i, in gallons,
pursuant to 80.1407.

    (iv) * * *

RVORF,i = The renewable Volume Obligation for renewable
fuel for the obligated party for calendar year i, in gallons,
pursuant to 80.1407.

    (v) Cellulosic biofuel--Exporter.

([Sigma]RINNUM)CB,i+ ([Sigma]RINNUM)CB,i-1=
ERVOCB,i

Where:

([Sigma]RINNUM)CB,i= Sum of all owned gallon-RINs that
are valid for use in complying with the cellulosic biofuel ERVO,
were generated in year i, and are being applied towards the
ERVOCB,i, in gallons.
([Sigma]RINNUM)CB,i-1= Sum of all owned gallon-RINs that are valid
under subparagraph (6) of this paragraph for use in complying with
the cellulosic biofuel ERVO, were generated in year i-1, and are
being applied towards the ERVOCB,i, in gallons.
ERVOCB, k= The Exporter Renewable Volume Obligation for
cellulosic biofuel for the renewable fuel exporter for an export of
renewable fuel k, in gallons, pursuant to Sec.  80.1430.

    (vi) Biomass-based diesel--Exporter.

([Sigma]RINNUM)BBD,i+ ([Sigma]RINNUM)BBD,i-1=
ERVOBBD,i

Where:

([Sigma]RINNUM)BBD,i= Sum of all owned gallon-RINs that
are valid for use in complying with the biomass-based diesel ERVO,
were generated in year i, and are being applied towards the
ERVOBBD,i, in gallons.
([Sigma]RINNUM)BBD,i-1= Sum of all owned gallon-RINs that are valid
under subparagraph (6) of this paragraph for use in complying with
the biomass-based diesel ERVO, were generated in year i-1, and are
being applied towards the ERVOBBD,i, in gallons.
ERVOBBD,i= The Exporter Renewable Volume Obligation for
biomass-based diesel for the renewable fuel exporter for an export
of renewable fuel I after 2010, in gallons, pursuant to Sec.
80.1430.

    (vii) Advanced biofuel--Exporter.

([Sigma]RINNUM)AB,i+ ([Sigma]RINNUM)AB,i-1=
ERVOAB,i

Where:

([Sigma]RINNUM)AB,i= Sum of all owned gallon-RINs that
are valid for use in complying with the advanced biofuel ERVO, were
generated in year i, and are being applied towards the
ERVOAB,i, in gallons.
([Sigma]RINNUM)AB,i-1= Sum of all owned gallon-RINs that are valid
under subparagraph (6) of this paragraph for use in complying with
the advanced biofuel ERVO, were generated in year i-1, and are being
applied towards the ERVOAB,i, in gallons.
ERVOAB,i= The Exporter Renewable Volume Obligation for
advanced biofuel for the renewable fuel exporter for an export of
renewable fuel i, in gallons, pursuant to Sec.  80.1430.

    (viii) Renewable fuel--Exporter.

([Sigma]RINNUM)RF,i+ ([Sigma]RINNUM)RF,i-1=
ERVORF,i

Where:

([Sigma]RINNUM)RF,i= Sum of all owned gallon-RINs that
are valid for use in complying with the renewable fuel (D code 6) E
ERVORF,i, in gallons.
([Sigma]RINNUM)RF,i-1= Sum of all owned gallon-RINs that are valid
under subparagraph (6) of this paragraph for use in complying with
the renewable fuel (D code 6) ERVO, were generated in year i-

1, and are being applied towards the ERVORF,i, in
gallons.
ERVORF,i= The exporter Renewable Volume Obligation for
renewable fuel for the renewable fuel exporter for an export of
renewable fuel i, in gallons, pursuant to Sec.  80.1430.
* * * * *
    (5) The value of ([Sigma]RINNUM)i-1 may not exceed values
determined by the following inequalities as provided in paragraph
(a)(7)(iii) of this section and 80.1442(d), for obligated parties only.
* * * * *
    (6) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(7) of this section:
    (i) For obligated parties, RINs may only be used to demonstrate
compliance with the RVOs for the calendar year in which they were
generated or the following calendar year.
    (ii) [Reserved.]
    (iii) For Renewable Fuel Exporters, RINs generated in calendar year
i, must be used to demonstrate compliance with the ERVOs from renewable
fuel export(s) in calendar year i, except as provided in paragraph
(a)(6)(iv) of this section.
    (iv) For Renewable Fuel Exporters, RINs generated in calendar year
i-1, may only be used to demonstrate compliance with the ERVOs from
renewable fuel exports in January of calendar year i.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 80.1441 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(2)(iii) to read
as follows:

Sec.  80.1441  Small refinery exemption.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) In order to qualify for an extension of its small refinery
exemption, a refinery must meet the definition of ``small refinery'' in
Sec.  80.1401 for all full calendar years between 2006 and the date of
submission of the petition for an extension.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 80.1450 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(C);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(C), (b)(1)(v)(D); and adding
(b)(1)(v)(E); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (h) and (i).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (C) To demonstrate compliance with the renewable electricity
production requirement for the biogas-derived cellulosic diesel and
cellulosic naphtha pathways, provide all the following information:
    (1) The energy source, equipment and/or process used to generate
the electricity. Permitted sources are raw landfill gas, waste heat
from the production process, unconverted syngas from the Fischer-
Tropsch process, fuel gas from the hydroprocessing, or combined heat-
and-power (CHP) units that use non-fossil fuel based gas or other
renewable sources.
    (2) Estimates of the total amount of electricity to be used, the
total amount of grid electricity to be purchased, the total amount of
renewable electricity to be produced, and a calculation of the percent
of total process electricity use to be produced from allowed sources at
the facility.
    (v) * * *
    (C)(1) For all facilities, copies of documents demonstrating each
facility's actual peak capacity as defined in Sec.  80.1401 if the
maximum rated annual volume output of renewable fuel is not specified
in the air permits specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(A) and
(b)(1)(v)(B) of this section, as appropriate.
    (2) For facilities claiming the exemption described in Sec.
80.1403 (c) or (d) which are exempt from air permit requirements and
for which insufficient production records exist to establish actual
peak capacity, copies of document demonstrating the facility's
nameplate capacity, as defined in Sec.  80.1401.
    (D) For all facilities producing renewable electricity or fuel from
biogas that qualifies as renewable fuel, submit all relevant
information in Sec.  80.1426(f)(10) or (11), and copies of all
contracts that the track the biogas or renewable electricity from its
original source, to the producer that processes it into renewable fuel,
and finally to the end user that will actually use the renewable
electricity or the renewable fuel derived from biogas for
transportation purposes.
    (1) Specific quantity and the heat content, percent efficiency of
transfer, if applicable, and any conversion factors of the biogas or
renewable biomass.
    (2) Specific quantity and the heat content and percent efficiency
of transfer, if applicable, and any conversion factors for the
renewable fuel derived from biogas or renewable electricity.
    (E) Such other records as may be requested by the Administrator.
* * * * *
    (h) Cancellation of Company Registration. (1) EPA may cancel a
company's registration, using the process in paragraph (h)(2) of this
section, if any of the following circumstances exist:
    (i) The company has reported no activity in EMTS for one calendar
year (January 1 through December 31) or has failed to meet any EMTS
requirement under Sec.  80.1452;
    (ii) The company has failed to comply with the registration
requirements of this section;
    (iii) The company has failed to submit any required report within
thirty (30) days of the required submission date under Sec.  80.1451;
or
    (iv) The attest engagement required under Sec.  80.1454 has not
been received within thirty (30) days of the required submission date.
    (2) EPA will use the following process whenever it decides to
cancel the registration of a company:
    (i) EPA will notify the company's owner or Responsible Corporate
Officer (RCO), in writing, that it intends to cancel the company's
registration, and identifying the reasons for that proposed action. The
company will have fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the
notification to correct the deficiencies identified or explain why
there is no need for corrective action.
    (ii) If the basis for EPA's notice of intent to cancel registration
is the absence of EMTS activity for one calendar year, a stated intent
to engage in activity reported through EMTS within the next calendar
year will be sufficient to avoid cancellation of registration.
    (iii) If the company does not respond, does not correct identified
deficiencies, or does not explain why such correction is not necessary
within the time allotted for response, EPA may cancel the company's
registration within further notice to the party.
    (3) Impact of registration cancellation.
    (i) A company whose registration is cancelled shall still be liable
for violation of any requirements of this subpart.
    (ii) A company whose registration is cancelled will not be listed
on any public list of actively registered companies that is maintained
by EPA.
    (iii) If the company whose registration is cancelled is a renewable
fuel producer or foreign ethanol producer, it will not be listed on any
public list of registered producers maintained by EPA.
    (iv) A company whose registration is cancelled will not have access
to any of the electronic reporting systems associated with the
renewable fuel standard program, including the EPA Moderated
Transaction System (EMTS).

    (v) A company whose registration is canceled must submit any
corrections of deficiencies to EPA on forms, and following policies,
established by EPA.
    (vi) If a company whose registration has been canceled wishes to
re-register, they may initiate that process by submitting a new
registration, consistent with paragraphs (a)-(c) of this section.
    (vii) English language registrations. Any document submitted to EPA
under Sec.  80.1450 must be submitted in English, or shall include an
English translation.
0
9. Section 80.1451 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(vi) and
(b)(1)(ii)(Q), and by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:

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

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) The RVOs for obligated parties, as defined in Sec.  80.1427(a)
and for exporters of renewable fuel, as defined in Sec.  80.1427(a) and
80.1430(b), for the reporting year.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (Q) Producers or importers of renewable fuel produced at facilities
that use biogas for process heat as described in Sec.  80.1426(f)(12),
shall report the total energy supplied to the renewable fuel facility,
in MMBtu based on metering of gas volume. Producers or importers of
renewable fuel produced at facilities that meet the renewable
electricity production requirement for the biogas-derived cellulosic
diesel and cellulosic naphtha pathways as described in Sec.
80.1426(f)(13), shall report the total renewable electricity produced
by the renewable facility, in kilowatt-hour (kWh) or megawatt-hour
(MWh), the total amount of electricity used, the total amount of grid
electricity purchased, and a calculation verifying the percent of total
process electricity from allowed sources produced on-site.
* * * * *
    (h) English language reports. Any document submitted to EPA under
Sec.  80.1451 must be submitted in English, or shall include an English
translation.
0
10. Amend Section 80.1452 to revise paragraph (c) introductory text and
add paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  80.1452  What are the requirements related to the EPA Moderated
Transaction System (EMTS)?

* * * * *
    (c) Starting July 1, 2010, each time any party sells, separates, or
retires RINs generated on or after July 1, 2010, all of the following
information must be submitted to EPA via the submitting party's EMTS
account within five (5) business days of the reportable event, except
as provided in Sec.  80.1430(f). Starting July 1, 2010, each time any
party purchases RINs generated on or after July 1, 2010, all the
following information must be submitted to EPA via the submitting
party's EMTS account within ten (10) business days of the reportable
event. The reportable event for a RIN separation occurs on the date of
separation as described in Sec.  80.1429. The reportable event for a
RIN retirement occurs on the date of retirement as described in this
subpart.
* * * * *
    (e) [Reserved.]
    (f) [Reserved.]
0
11. Amend Section 80.1454 by
0
a. Adding paragraph (a)(7);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(i);
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(7);
0
d. Revising paragraph (f)(3)(i) and adding paragraph (f)(5); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (k)(1); and
0
f. Adding paragraph (q).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (7) Records related to any volume of renewable fuel that was
disqualified by the party pursuant to Sec.  80.1433:
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) A list of the RINs owned, purchased, sold, separated, retired,
or reinstated.
* * * * *
    (7) Records related to any volume of renewable fuel where RINs were
not generated by the renewable fuel producer or importer pursuant to
Sec.  80.1426(c):
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) A list of the RINs owned, purchased, sold, separated, retired,
or reinstated.
* * * * *
    (5) Records related to any volume of renewable fuel that was
disqualified by the party pursuant to Sec.  80.1433.
* * * * *
    (k)(1) Biogas and electricity in pathways involving feedstocks
other than grain sorghum. A renewable fuel producer that generates RINs
for renewable CNG/LNG or renewable electricity produced from renewable
biomass for fuels that are used for transportation pursuant to Sec.
80.1426(f)(10) and (11), or that uses process heat from biogas to
generate RINs for renewable fuel pursuant to Sec.  80.1426(f)(12) or
that meets the renewable electricity production requirement for the
biogas-derived cellulosic diesel and cellulosic naphtha pathways
pursuant to Sec.  80.1426(f)(13) shall keep all of the following
additional records:
    (i) Documents demonstrating the kilowatt-hours (kWh) of allowable
electricity relied upon under Sec.  80.1426(f)(13) that was generated
at the facility, if applicable.
    (ii) The energy source, equipment and/or process used to generate
the electricity relied upon under Sec.  80.1426(f)(13), if applicable.
Permitted sources are raw landfill gas, waste heat from the production
process, unconverted syngas from the Fischer-Tropsch process, fuel gas
from the hydroprocessing, or combined heat-and-power (CHP) units that
use non-fossil fuel based gas or other renewable sources.
    (iii) Contracts and documents memorializing the sale of renewable
CNG/LNG 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 and all associated environmental attributes from
the point of generation to the facility which sells or uses the fuel
for transportation purposes.
    (iv) 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.
    (v) 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 shared power grid (for renewable electricity).
    (vi) Documents demonstrating the volume and energy content of
biogas relied upon under Sec.  80.1426(f)(12) at the point of
distribution.
    (vii) 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 or process

electricity relied upon under Sec.  80.1426(f)(12) or Sec.
80.1426(f)(13) were used for process heat or electricity 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.
    (viii) The biogas or renewable electricity producer's Compliance
Certification required under Title V of the Clean Air Act.
    (ix) Documents demonstrating the total amount of grid electricity
purchased and calculations showing the percent of total electricity
usage provided by allowable electricity production at the facility, if
applicable.
    (x) Such other records as may be requested by the Administrator.
* * * * *
    (q) English language records. Any document requested by the
Administrator under this section must be submitted in English, or shall
include an English translation.
0
12. Section 80.1463 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  80.1463  What penalties apply under the RFS program?

* * * * *
    (d) Any person violating Sec.  80.1460(b)(1)-(4) or (6) engages in
a separate violation for each day that an invalid RIN remains available
for use in RFS compliance, and each such daily violation is punishable
by the maximum daily penalty allowed under the Clean Air Act.
0
13. Section 80.1466 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a), (d)(1), (d)(1)(vi), (d)(3)(ii), (e)(1)(i), (f)
introductory text, (h), (h)(1), and (o)(2) and adding paragraph (p) as
follows:

Sec.  80.1466  What are the additional requirements under this subpart
for RIN-generating foreign producers, non RIN-generating foreign
producers, foreign ethanol producers and importers of renewable fuels?

    (a) Foreign producer of renewable fuel. For purposes of this
subpart, a foreign producer of renewable fuel is a person located
outside the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (collectively referred to in this section as ``the
United States'') that has been registered with EPA as a renewable fuel
producer or foreign ethanol producer, regardless of whether the foreign
renewable fuel producer generates RINs or an importer of renewable fuel
generates RINs for the fuel. Hereinafter referred to as a ``foreign
producer'' under this section.
    (d) * * * (1) On each occasion that RFS-FRRF is loaded onto a
vessel for transport to the United States the foreign producer shall
have an independent third party do all the following:
* * * * *
    (vi) Review original documents that reflect movement and storage of
the RFS-FRRF from the foreign producer to the load port, and from this
review determine all the following:
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Be independent under the criteria specified in Sec.
80.65(f)(2)(iii); and
* * * * *